[Tagging] natural=????

Dominik George nik at naturalnet.de
Tue Sep 10 21:06:13 UTC 2013

Why? If there is a difference, then there is a difference.

BTW, mind fix your From name, Mrs. or Mr. Gmail?


Gmail <yvecai at gmail.com> schrieb:
>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
>>above timberline.
>>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
>>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.
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging at openstreetmap.org

Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130910/3bc86d7e/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list