M∡rtin Koppenhoefer writes:
> 2011/1/27 Stephen Hope gmail.com>:
> > It's a little bit more general than that - a sloping hillside covered
> > with loose rock is also scree. But loose rock on flat ground never
> > is. I used to climb up scree slopes a lot when I was a kid.
>
> OK, so IMHO this
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 08:02:55AM +1000, Stephen Hope wrote:
S> On 28 January 2011 07:43, wrote:
S> > Scree, however, usually refers to a sloping pile of loose rock at the base
of a cliff, rather than being a general term for loose rocks.
S>
S> It's a little bit more general than that - a slop
2011/1/29 John Smith :
>>> On 30 January 2011 03:34, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
>>> wrote:
even though this creates some problems: if you tag a polygon with
natural=beach, surface=sand, doesn't this imply a the polygon is sand?
The "beach" could often include also bars, restaurants, parki
2011/1/29 Johan Jönsson :
> surface is probably to prefer over natural=bare_rock. But if there is no other
> good tag for the area then you can use the landcover tag of natural=bare_rock,
> instead of leaving it blank.
how would you map a peak that is not covered by vegetation? IMHO
natural is n
On 30 January 2011 21:05, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> broken by design...
> There won't be an "invalid polygon", there would be 2 valid but
> contradicting polygons.
Which are sorted by smallest first usually so they render on top of
the larger ones.
2011/1/30 John Smith :
> On 30 January 2011 21:05, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> broken by design...
>> There won't be an "invalid polygon", there would be 2 valid but
>> contradicting polygons.
>
> Which are sorted by smallest first usually so they render on top of
> the larger ones.
This is a
On 30 January 2011 21:52, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> This is a method of trying to extract useful data from an undefined
> state making assumptions, but it is IMHO not how we should design our
> data model. This would also mean that even with complete data for the
> whole world, you would need e
2011/1/30 John Smith :
> None of which is an issue, you can sort and display the information
> however you like,
all of them are issues. To recall: My statement was, that a polygon
tagged with "surface=xy" should have this surface. If there are parts
inside this polygon, that don't have this surf
Johan Jönsson writes:
> This is an old proposal, that have been discussed before.
> It lead to a rewriting
> and instead of natural=rock it is proposed natural=bare_rock.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/bare_rock
>
> It is supposed to be a tag for land cover.
A summar
In the discussion of natural=bare_rock I have found that there is need for
a couple of different specific natural-tags for stone and rock land forms.
for instance the boulder fields and other areas of lose rock that are not scree.
It would be nice if we could find a hierachical tagging system in
Johan Jönsson writes:
> A summary so far.
>
> There seem to be a need for a tag for areas of solid rock, bedrock,
> with visible rock surface. bare_rock could be used.
>
> It is then obvious that there also is a need for areas covered by loose
> rocks.
> The naming of the popular natural=scr
2011/1/31 Johan Jönsson :
> If used with the natural-key then
> it should at least be possible to use the same way as natural=wetland
> with subtags of wetland=..
> natural=rockland :-)
> I started a new thread on that.
Not all rocky surfaces are natural, just like sand being used on golf
courses
12 matches
Mail list logo
