I agree it could be considered as humus. The distinction between organic soil and humus is ambiguous according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus , but I think it is general enough to target mostly organic soil.
Shall we consider to add this specification on the tagging? Or would humus be considered as bare soil anyway? Thanks -- Michael Montani GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies United Nations Global Service Centre United Nations Department of Operational Support Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 6985 E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org> [cid:072fe9f2-17da-426c-b4c6-c25f4370d75b] ________________________________ Da: Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com> Inviato: venerdì 10 luglio 2020 12:02 A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging@openstreetmap.org> Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground) Organic without any mineral, would you still call that soil? Vr gr Peter Elderson Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 11:55 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com<mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>: sent from a phone > On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging > <tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: > > Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil? +1, I also disagree that “soil can be organic or mineral”. It has typically both, organic and mineral components, but organic components are a hard requirement. Otherwise it would be sand, or rock, or silt or clay or loam etc. (depending on grain size/s). Cheers Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
