[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Fri Jul 10 13:32:38 UTC 2020


On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:10, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Jul 10, 2020, 15:04 by pla16021 at gmail.com:
>
> I've just realized what prompted the back of my mind into writing the
> preceding paragraph.  landcover=barren (or natural=barren) seems
> to handle things nicely without worrying about soil/clay/humus
> distinctions.
>
> barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also paved
> surfaces,
>

Ummm, not really.  Not in British English.  I'd never describe paved
surfaces
as barren.  Technically, I suppose they are, but they don't fit my mental
category of barren.

bare rock, areas with poor plant growth and many other cases
>
as not a native speaker - natural=barren_soil seems more reasonable
> and harder to misinterpret
>

It doesn't feel right to me.  Bare soil, yes.  That's soil with no plants.
Barren soil means incapable of sustaining plant life, and that is
harder to determine.

You can determine that land is barren from aerial imagery (if you
have images from different seasons and years).  You need
on-the-ground survey to determine that it's bare soil.  And I
suspect that such areas are rarely uniformly bare soil but
may have patches of clay, sand, or gravel.  Also, soil
degrades or erodes given enough time - the Sahara was
once fertile land, now it's sand.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200710/b0e48a35/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list