[Tagging] natural=????

John F. Eldredge john at jfeldredge.com
Wed Sep 11 16:02:57 UTC 2013


Tod Fitch <Tod at FitchDesign.com> wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

I have visited areas of alpine tundra, in the Swiss Alps, that had soil conditions that I would describe as permafrost.  The surface thawed during summer days, and was soupy mud.  Underneath this mud was a rock-hard frozen layer.  In shaded areas, the surface was still frozen, suggesting that the thawed areas probably refroze every night.

-- 
John F. Eldredge -- john at jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness: 
only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130911/4c96b14c/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list