[Tagging] cleanup of the key natural

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Thu Oct 9 08:02:34 UTC 2014

> Il giorno 07/ott/2014, alle ore 19:40, Dan S <danstowell+osm at gmail.com> ha scritto:
> For example it's not clear to me whether you would
> accept natural=tree (see my first point), but since there are more
> than 4 million of them, I think you are going to have to accept them.

I'm in a hurry  now, just a remark: natural=tree should be kept, it does fit logically into the scheme, it says: one tree. Like a spring, a bay, a wetland, a rock etc
mud doesn't fit, for natural that would be wetland (with appropriate subtags). The same for sand, this would be beach or desert or wasteland or ...

"sand" or "mud" aren't geographical features in my understanding, they are orthogonal and hence are creating conflicts (because you could either tag beach or sand etc)

What might be disputed is water. In my reading something like lake  or pond would fit better, but this can be done with subtagging as well, like it is already proposed so I wouldn't change water for historical reasons 


More information about the Tagging mailing list