[Tagging] cliffs and embankents or anything else

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Sep 5 09:27:41 UTC 2014


2014-09-04 21:24 GMT+02:00 Friedrich Volkmann <bsd at volki.at>:

>
> > 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.
>


planted trees for me qualify as "natural", maybe we have different images
in mind when we speak about "artificial" and "natural"?



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


http://www.pattayashootingpark.com/gallery_artificial_cliff_climbing.html




> >     , 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?
>


no, an artificial landscape.




>
> > 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.
>


I am not referring to cliffs but to a new "slope" tag to map significant
terrain features we don't currently tag (afaik).




>
> > 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?
>


http://forschungsstellerekultivierung.de/images/rekultivierung.jpg


>     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.




everybody has the right for her own opinion, and to map what she wants to
map. If you don't want to map slopes, the solution is easy. On the other
hand slopes are typically a feature of topomaps in scales like 1:25k/50.000
and below. In any more detailed map you'll usually put them. Why? Because
they do matter to a lot of people.

cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140905/6ccd1cf3/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list