[Tagging] natural=????

Tod Fitch Tod at FitchDesign.com
Tue Sep 10 21:43:51 UTC 2013


On Tue, September 10, 2013 2:16 pm, John Eldredge wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 04:06 PM, Dominik George wrote:
>> Why? If there is a difference, then there is a difference.
>>
>> BTW, mind fix your From name, Mrs. or Mr. Gmail?
>>
>> -nik
>>
>>
>>
>> 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:
>>
>>         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_montane_chaparral
>>
>>         And the Wikipedia page regarding alpine tundra affirms it:
>>
>>         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_tundra
>>
>>         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,
>>         natural=antarctic_tundra
>>
>>         With descriptions per Wikipedia:
>>         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tundra
>>         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_tundra
>>
> How would you tag tundra which was both alpine and arctic/antarctic (in
> other words, on a mountain in either the Arctic or Antarctic regions)?
> I know that Alaska and Antarctica both have some extensive mountain
> ranges, as do parts of Scandinavia.  As far as I know, the Arctic
> regions of both Canada and Siberia are relatively flat.
>

Wikipedia indicates that the arctic tundra has moisture and the soil is
over permafrost whereas alpine tundra has well drained soils.

I haven't been to an area with arctic tundra so I can't say. I suppose if
the vegetation looks the same on the mountain slopes it could be tagged as
arctic tundra. If the ecosystem looks more like alpine tundra found in
temperate latitudes then it could be tagged as that.

Regards,
Tod




More information about the Tagging mailing list