On Saturday 12 July 2014, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
>
> That's how natural=bare_rock is defined ("areas made principally or
> mostly of solid rock"), analogous to
> natural=water/sand/grass/glacier/etc. all of which are about the
> surface. The bare_rock proposal was approved 2 years ago and there
> are 64 566 occurrences by now.Most of these are from the Antarctica import [1] where they mostly comply with the definition quite well although in some part areas have a thin, patchy scree cover. The Corine natural=rock areas on the other hand are not natural=bare_rock, neither factually as you can easily check with a few examples nor by definition [2] where it is simply described as "Scree, cliffs, rocks outcrops, including active erosion, rocks and reef flats situated above the high-water mark". Based on this it would probably not be a good idea to mechanically re-tag these to natural=bare_rock but this is something that should be discussed at the appropriate place (i.e. in imports). In my opinion these areas would need manual reviewing and fixing before any meaningful tags can be applied. In many cases it might be easier to remap the area from scratch. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Antarctic_Digital_Database [2] http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover/land_cover.pdf -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
