[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Michael Montani michael.montani at un.org
Tue Jul 21 13:06:04 UTC 2020

I think it is a good idea to consider a threshold of vegetation present on the ground in order not to confuse the proposed natural=bare_soil with other landcover tags as natural=scrub or natural=grassland.

According to the CORINE landcover definitions we mentioned before, sparsely vegetated areas are defined as areas with less than 50% vegetation covering. Thus, < 30% seems good to me.
As for the FAO classification, I think bare_soil can be classified as any compacted bare area with ground (meant as: any area of silt or clay soil, as well as loam (mixed soil with clay/silt/sand) and mixed organic (including humus) and mineral soil). This tag should be applied whenever the groundy area cannot be tagged with already existing tags, mainly due to the environmental or geological nature of that area (as, for example, natural=wetland + intermittent=yes).

Also, good images in the talk page<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground> are present, with [13] and [15] being my favourites. I also think not all the bare_soil areas are deserts or desert pavements, and I don't consider mapping ground as mapping the un-mapped.

I would like to raise a last round of consultations, after which I will proceed with the voting.


Da: mbranco2 <mbranco2 at gmail.com>
Inviato: giovedì 16 luglio 2020 16:06
A: tagging at openstreetmap.org <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

natural=bare_soil  sounds good to me, maybe it should be useful to set a maximum vegetation percentage (30% ?)
If not, someone could say "Hey, there are two bushes in that area, it's not bare soil"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200721/df6f7868/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list