[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

pangoSE pangose at riseup.net
Tue Aug 4 09:55:03 UTC 2020

Thanks for the heads up Joseph. I also read what Imagico wrote1 and voted no.
I recommend others to do the same.

1 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposed_features/Ground&curid=253931&diff=2016970&oldid=2016363

Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> skrev: (3 augusti 2020 23:17:18 CEST)
>Everyone, the voting period for natural=bare_ground is still open for 4
>more days.
>I would recommend voting "no" on the current definition, unfortunately.
>As mentioned above, the current definition is far too broad, and could
>easily be construed to include areas under construction, areas of bare
>due to use by people as a pathway or road area, and many sorts of arid
>semi-natural areas, including those that are partially covered by
>heath, grass or other sparse vegetation, or even areas of farmland that
>currently fallow.
>Please see the discussion and objections on
>I think it is a good idea to have a way to tag bare soil which is not
>(natural=sand) or mostly stones (natural=shingle/scree) or mud, but we
>a clear, limited definition which does not fit with human-use areas
>roads, dirt parking lots, construction sites, abandoned quarries etc,
>there needs to be more consideration about when the tag should be used
>instead of natural=heath and natural=scrub in arid regions where there
>scattered bushes.
>For the proposal author, I would suggest mapping some local features in
>your area which would fit the proposed definition, and then come back
>photos plus aerial imagery of the areas which ought to be mapped with
>tag. So far it has been mostly hypothetical, which makes it hard to
>understand which sorts of landscapes would qualify for this tag.
>- Joseph Eisenberg
>On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:58 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
><dieterdreist at gmail.com>
>> sent from a phone
>> > On 27. Jul 2020, at 13:41, Michael Montani <michael.montani at un.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I eventually found on-the-ground images of the feature I would like
>> propose / map.
>> are these suggested to be represented as polygons? How would the
>border be
>> determined? I looks from the imagery as if there is a smooth
>transition of
>> these „features“ and neighbouring land which isn’t completely bare.
>Did you
>> try to map some of these and if yes, could you please post a link to
>> area where a few are mapped?
>> Cheers Martin
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200804/4988ad5c/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list