[Tagging] cliffs and embankents or anything else

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 04.09.2014 17:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>     > There's the question whether "natural" is appropriate as there are
>     > also man made steep slopes.
> 
>     I think that we do not need that kind of differenciation. There are also man
>     made water areas and trees, and we are doing fine without tags like
>     man_made=tree.
> 
> 
> 
> sounds interesting, can you expand about these artificial trees? Or are you
> referring to something like this:
> http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-478741-galleryV9-axic.jpg
> I hope we agree that these shouldn't be tagged as natural=tree?

Yes, because the material is not natural.

The supposedly artificial cliffs are of natural material. We can only
compare them with planted trees.

>     A cliff (or steep slope) cannot be man made on its own
> 
> of course it can.

Example?

>     , because it can only
>     be created by putting up something on one side, or digging off something on
>     the other side. So it's actually the adjacent horizontal area that is
>     man made.
> 
> the whole area can be man_made, e.g. concrete, why not?

Say, a building?

> I agree in so far as from one point of view we could have a tag that only
> describes the shape without referring to natural or man_made (who or why
> something is there). But I wouldn't recommend the natural namespace for
> this, as people often interpret this literally.

natural=cliff is already in use. Please don't make up synonymous tags.

> no, you can have an embankment in an otherwise totally plain area, and there
> could be this one level change.

Example? Why would the build a train or something in the only place prone to
erosion?

>     2) The syntactic aspect: what's the differece between embankment=yes and
>     =both?
> 
> yes will either imply both or could mean either onesided or both (i.e. the
> details are unknown), that will have to be defined. As it stands, "unknown
> if both or left/right" might be the safer assumption.

I consider =both safer, because that's the documented meaning so far.

>     3) The usage aspect: Do we really want to tag all mountain roads
>     embankment=left + cutting=right?
> 
> in ultimate detail yes, why not? If people have undertaken the effort to
> move and cut into mountains, putting an attribute to a line in a collective
> computer database seems relatively feasible, no?

No.

Cutting into mountains generates a benefit. Mapping slopes doesn't.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann       http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria