[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -mass rock

Martin Koppenhoefer 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.

Cheers Martin 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210402/7fe716b0/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list