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

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Aug 5 02:54:31 UTC 2020

On 4/8/20 7:17 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> 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 
> soil due to use by people as a pathway or road area,
These are 'land use' not 'land cover' and can be tagged separately. They 
are orthogonal.
> and many sorts of arid and semi-natural areas, including those that 
> are partially covered by shrubs, heath, grass or other sparse vegetation,

The question is, what is dominate? An area of trees that is mostly trees 
should be tagged as trees, if it is mostly bear earth then tagged as 
bare earth...

OSM already has areas of combined trees and shrubs where the general 
guide used is tag what is dominate. No need to single this proposal with 
partial coverings as it applies to all of the present OSM tagging.

> or even areas of farmland that are currently fallow.
Again a land use not a land cover.
> Please see the discussion and objections on 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground
> I think it is a good idea to have a way to tag bare soil which is not 
> sand (natural=sand) or mostly stones (natural=shingle/scree) or mud, 
> but we need a clear, limited definition which does not fit with 
> human-use areas like roads, dirt parking lots, construction sites, 
> abandoned quarries etc, and 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 are 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 with photos plus aerial imagery of the areas which ought to be 
> mapped with this tag. So far it has been mostly hypothetical, which 
> makes it hard to understand which sorts of landscapes would qualify 
> for this tag.

I think this is similar to the tags surface=earth and surface=dirt, both 
are poorly defined.

Perhaps these 2 tags would be better as surface=soil???

The proposal sates "An area covered by soil" so it should be natural=soil.

The description could then be "The upper layer of the planet earth being 
a material typically consisting of a mixture of organic remains, clay, 
and rock particles." ???

Of course the usual exclusions apply;

majority is soil

where a more detailed value applies, use it eg natural=clay if the 
majority of the area is covered by clay.

> - Joseph Eisenberg
> On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:58 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     sent from a phone
>     > On 27. Jul 2020, at 13:41, Michael Montani
>     <michael.montani at un.org <mailto:michael.montani at un.org>> wrote:
>     >
>     > I eventually found on-the-ground images of the feature I would
>     like to 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 an area where a few are mapped?
Transitions from, say, trees to shrubs also occur. The guide is to map 
what is dominate, when domination changes is where the 'border' is. OSM 
does not have tagging for mixed areas, if you want it .. propose it?
>     Cheers Martin 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200805/67214ea4/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list