Hi Martin, OK, well since you requested comments: Firstly, I find it difficult to understand what makes your proposed split more "coherent" or "easy to learn" than thewiki- grouping that you propose to revert! By the way please don't start a revert battle without first talking to that editor.
Secondly, these tags are used so widely that I think you may have missed your chance. For example it's not clear to me whether you would accept natural=tree (see my first point), but since there are more than 4 million of them, I think you are going to have to accept them. If you want to make a change to the tagging of a massive number of objects, you're going to need a _really_ persuasive argument. Not to persuade me, but to persuade the "crowd"... Just my 2p Best Dan 2014-10-07 14:42 GMT+01:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>: > According to the wiki, the natural key is currently a mixture of different > aspects of something. The wiki states that it covers a selection of > "geological" and "landcover" features. > > My suggestion is to keep only geological/geographical features in "natural" > (all three, point features like peak and spring as well as linear features > like natural=cliff or coastline and areas like > natural=fell/wetland/beach/heath/bay/scrub/...) and to move the landcover > features (those describing material rather than features, e.g. "mud" and > "sand") to a different key (my suggestion is "landcover" but there are also > mappers advocating "surface"). > > A more coherent scheme would have a lot of advantages (easier to learn and > understand because of more inherent logics, easier to maintain and extend > and would allow to elaborate on different aspects for the same area object > (i.e. will lead to more detailed data in the end)). > > --- > > Additionally I have spotted that recently a user has decided to group the > features according to his interpretation: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:natural&action=history > > I believe that this new grouping is disputable and propose to revert this > change. > --- > > > Please comment. > > cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
