[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -mass rock
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Fri Apr 2 20:27:29 UTC 2021
sent from a phone
> On 2 Apr 2021, at 13:26, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> it seems that it is not always natural=rock, and it could be also
> natural=stone or part of natural=bare_rock
bare rock is definitely also rock, no? On close inspection there is rock in all of the 4 pictures in the proposal
> I am not fan of historic=place_of_worship as part of being suspicious
> about tagging historic data
it already has some use, 189: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/historic=place_of_worship
it is the same order as was:amenity =
pow (177): https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/was%3Aamenity=place_of_worship
and seems equally ok, maybe I’d prefer it.
The place_of_worship key is semi established and the proposed value makes also sense to me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging