Thanks for the heads up Joseph. I also read what Imagico wrote1 and voted no. I recommend others to do the same.
Cheers pangoSE 1 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposed_features/Ground&curid=253931&diff=2016970&oldid=2016363 Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> skrev: (3 augusti 2020 23:17:18 CEST) >Everyone, the voting period for natural=bare_ground is still open for 4 >more days. > >I would recommend voting "no" on the current definition, unfortunately. > >As mentioned above, the current definition is far too broad, and could >easily be construed to include areas under construction, areas of bare >soil >due to use by people as a pathway or road area, and many sorts of arid >and >semi-natural areas, including those that are partially covered by >shrubs, >heath, grass or other sparse vegetation, or even areas of farmland that >are >currently fallow. > >Please see the discussion and objections on >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground > >I think it is a good idea to have a way to tag bare soil which is not >sand >(natural=sand) or mostly stones (natural=shingle/scree) or mud, but we >need >a clear, limited definition which does not fit with human-use areas >like >roads, dirt parking lots, construction sites, abandoned quarries etc, >and >there needs to be more consideration about when the tag should be used >instead of natural=heath and natural=scrub in arid regions where there >are >scattered bushes. > >For the proposal author, I would suggest mapping some local features in >your area which would fit the proposed definition, and then come back >with >photos plus aerial imagery of the areas which ought to be mapped with >this >tag. So far it has been mostly hypothetical, which makes it hard to >understand which sorts of landscapes would qualify for this tag. > >- Joseph Eisenberg > >On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:58 AM Martin Koppenhoefer ><dieterdre...@gmail.com> >wrote: > >> >> >> sent from a phone >> >> > On 27. Jul 2020, at 13:41, Michael Montani <michael.mont...@un.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > I eventually found on-the-ground images of the feature I would like >to >> propose / map. >> >> >> are these suggested to be represented as polygons? How would the >border be >> determined? I looks from the imagery as if there is a smooth >transition of >> these „features“ and neighbouring land which isn’t completely bare. >Did you >> try to map some of these and if yes, could you please post a link to >an >> area where a few are mapped? >> >> 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
