yvecai at gmail.com
Tue Sep 10 20:57:59 UTC 2013
In a geo database, tundra alone must be sufficient, don't you think ?
Tod Fitch <Tod at FitchDesign.com> a écrit :
>I'd like to start adding some vegetation information to an area
>in the mountains of Southern California. There are a couple of
>situations that I am uncertain of the correct tagging of treeless
>areas. For this query though I'll restrict it to areas at or
>I believe the wide spread term to describe the ecosystem is
>"alpine tundra". Certainly the Wikipedia article on southern
>California mountains refers to it that way:
>And the Wikipedia page regarding alpine tundra affirms it:
>But the closest looking tag I see at
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural seems to be natural=fell
>Fell appears to be a UK centric description for a subset of
>alpine tundra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fell
>There are currently no natural=*alpine* tags and only a handful
>natural=tundra, the use of which seems to cover both alpine tundra
>(mountains in Colorado) and arctic tundra (northern Canada, etc.)
>without a way to distinguish which of the two are meant.
>What are the thoughts of extending the natural tag to include:
>natural=arctic_tundra, natural=alpine_tundra and, possibly,
>With descriptions per Wikipedia:
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org
Envoyé de mon téléphone Android avec K-9 Mail. Excusez la brièveté.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging