chris_hormann at gmx.de
Tue Sep 10 21:37:34 UTC 2013
On Tuesday 10 September 2013, Tod Fitch wrote:
> 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
I had looked at that as well some time ago and found the same.
natural=grassland and natural=heath could be used in some cases but
those are quite specific and only make sense if either grasses or woody
plants are clearly the dominating vegetation.
> Fell appears to be a UK centric description for a subset of
> alpine tundra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fell
natural=fell originally seems to have been introduced as a way of naming
areas and not as a landcover tag.
> 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,
Differenciating between alpine and polar tundra, possibly even arctic
and antarctic via tag is pointless - not to mention that there is no
way to draw a clear line between the two (i.e. in polar mountain
areas). Although alpine and polar tundra ecosystems differ these
differences are fairly subtle in a lot of cases.
The real problem about natural=tundra is that it is a very broad
classification. Essentially it starts at the treeline with often quite
lush grass or woody vegetation and ends with scattered lichens. In a
way natural=tundra would be orthogonal to the existing natural=wood|
scrub|grassland|heath since it does not specify what grows there but
instead says why it grows there (because it's beyond the alpine/arctic
treeline). In this way it would be similar to natural=wetland (or the
More information about the Tagging