Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
51 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Michael Montani
Dear mappers,

after the discussion we had through the tagging ML "Are we mapping ground on OSM?", it has been open a feature proposal to map ground on OSM.

Tag: natural = bare_ground (but many other options are open to discussion).
Description: "An area covered by soil, without any vegetation"
You can find the proposal wikipage here.

I hope this proposal will receive as many contributions possible, thank you

--
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 



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Tagging mailing list

"meant any soil area (which can be organic or mineral" - what you mean by that?
Soil is mixture of mineral and organic material.


It seems that this proposal avoid many mistakes of this very similar one, but reviewing
what people considered as a problem may be useful.

Jul 10, 2020, 11:16 by [hidden email]:
Dear mappers,

after the discussion we had through the tagging ML "Are we mapping ground on OSM?", it has been open a feature proposal to map ground on OSM.

Tag: natural = bare_ground (but many other options are open to discussion).
Description: "An area covered by soil, without any vegetation"
You can find the proposal wikipage here.

I hope this proposal will receive as many contributions possible, thank you






--
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 




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Michael Montani
Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil?

Using "ground" and defining it as "soil, not all kinds of ground" will not go well.

natural=bare_ground for me is clearly including also natural=bare_rock,
while natural=bare_soil would avoid this


Jul 10, 2020, 11:16 by [hidden email]:
Dear mappers,

after the discussion we had through the tagging ML "Are we mapping ground on OSM?", it has been open a feature proposal to map ground on OSM.

Tag: natural = bare_ground (but many other options are open to discussion).
Description: "An area covered by soil, without any vegetation"
You can find the proposal wikipage here.

I hope this proposal will receive as many contributions possible, thank you






--
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 




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

R: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Michael Montani
>Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil?

Using "ground" and defining it as "soil, not all kinds of ground" will not go well.

natural=bare_ground for me is clearly including also natural=bare_rock,
while natural=bare_soil would avoid this

This is a good point. The two ways I can see this problem solved:
  • Change the proposal to natural=bare_soil (bare_soil was one of the proposed possible values)
  • Collapse natural=bare_rock into a more general natural=bare_ground (requires cleaning and changing to the new tag...). Too general to me.
If natural=bare_soil receives enough support we can change to that one. Also add your thoughts to the discussion page in the wiki in such a way to keep track of all the suggestions.

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 



Da: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]>
Inviato: venerdì 10 luglio 2020 11:37
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <[hidden email]>
Cc: Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)
 
Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil?

Using "ground" and defining it as "soil, not all kinds of ground" will not go well.

natural=bare_ground for me is clearly including also natural=bare_rock,
while natural=bare_soil would avoid this


Jul 10, 2020, 11:16 by [hidden email]:
Dear mappers,

after the discussion we had through the tagging ML "Are we mapping ground on OSM?", it has been open a feature proposal to map ground on OSM.

Tag: natural = bare_ground (but many other options are open to discussion).
Description: "An area covered by soil, without any vegetation"
You can find the proposal wikipage here.

I hope this proposal will receive as many contributions possible, thank you






--
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 




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list


sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Michael Montani

Independent of what i already said in

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-July/053795.html

i am always wary of tags lacking any examples for on-the-ground mapping or a practically locally verifiable definition.  And defining a tag negatively trough the lack of something (vegetation) rather than positively through something that can be positively observed is problematic.  We have had this problem with natural=desert already (which some had defined equally though the absence of vegetation).

Overall as it stands this does not seem likely to become a successful and meaningful tag.  Maybe you can show some on-the-ground examples of areas you think this tag is suitable and needed for and get input from the wider community how they would suggest to characterize and tag such areas.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
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 <[hidden email]>:


sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 12:05, Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Organic without any mineral, would you still call that soil?


I’d call it humus, not sure whether the term soil can apply or not, I am not a native English speaker.

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Michael Montani
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson
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 




Da: Peter Elderson <[hidden email]>
Inviato: venerdì 10 luglio 2020 12:02
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>:


sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Peter Elderson
Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, being a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter. 

To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil. Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year? 


Best, Peter Elderson


Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 12:42 schreef Michael Montani <[hidden email]>:
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 




Da: Peter Elderson <[hidden email]>
Inviato: venerdì 10 luglio 2020 12:02
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>:


sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Michael Montani
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
Unfortunately I don't have photos of the terrain at the moment, but I will see if I can come back with some on the ground example.

For now, I put some example photos in the Talk page of the feature proposal . Feel free to leave a comment on any photo, e.g. whether or not you would it consider as soil. I would be also curious to know what tag would you use to map the ground of this kind of areas with the already existent tags.

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 




Da: Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]>
Inviato: venerdì 10 luglio 2020 12:00
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <[hidden email]>
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)
 

Independent of what i already said in

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-July/053795.html

i am always wary of tags lacking any examples for on-the-ground mapping or a practically locally verifiable definition.  And defining a tag negatively trough the lack of something (vegetation) rather than positively through something that can be positively observed is problematic.  We have had this problem with natural=desert already (which some had defined equally though the absence of vegetation).

Overall as it stands this does not seem likely to become a successful and meaningful tag.  Maybe you can show some on-the-ground examples of areas you think this tag is suitable and needed for and get input from the wider community how they would suggest to characterize and tag such areas.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson


sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 13:33, Peter Elderson <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil. Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year?



not if there isn’t water at all, or if it is heavily contaminated

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Warin
In reply to this post by Peter Elderson
On 10/7/20 9:30 pm, Peter Elderson wrote:
Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, being a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter. 

To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil. Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year?


Not always.

Sorry to say but some soils have been so polluted combined with the resulting soil erosion vegetation has taken some decades to come back.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenstown,_Tasmania#Ecology



Best, Peter Elderson


Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 12:42 schreef Michael Montani <[hidden email]>:
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 




Da: Peter Elderson <[hidden email]>
Inviato: venerdì 10 luglio 2020 12:02
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <[hidden email]>
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 <[hidden email]>:


sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Kevin Kenny-3


On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:19 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/7/20 9:30 pm, Peter Elderson wrote:
Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, being a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter. 

To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil. Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year?


Not always.

Sorry to say but some soils have been so polluted combined with the resulting soil erosion vegetation has taken some decades to come back.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenstown,_Tasmania#Ecology


I'd imagine that pollution and erosion would result in a surface of mineral, rather than organic soil; hence the land cover would be clay, sand, scree, or bare_rock, depending on the particle size. Even the article you cite mentions areas eroded to bare rock.  These values are all available for tagging a mineral surface.

 

--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 14:40, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'd imagine that pollution and erosion would result in a surface of mineral, rather than organic soil;


lack of water still remains a possibility. For small areas you can also imagine so many people walking or driving on it that no plants make it. Or animals eating everything (think a pig sty or hen‘s house)

Ciao Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Warin
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 13:19, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/7/20 9:30 pm, Peter Elderson wrote:
Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, being a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter. 

To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil. Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year?


Sorry to say but some soils have been so polluted combined with the resulting soil erosion vegetation has taken some decades to come back.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenstown,_Tasmania#Ecology


I don't see how an area that has suffered soil erosion can be mapped as bare soil,
I see from the Wikipedia article you cite that "[...] the erosion of the shallow horizon
topsoil back to the harder rock profile [...]" so we'd map that as bare rock,
wouldn't we?

I'll take this opportunity to mention that some (not you) have suggested
that bare soil might happen through lack of rainfall, which is possible.
Others have then suggested that such cases could be mapped as
desert.  Desert is an incredibly bad tag because it is not a surface,
or a land cover, or even a natural (as used in OSM), it's a CLIMATE.
Desert means a lack of precipitation (which usually results in
the land being barren.  The Sahara (hot and sandy) is a desert, but so is
arctic tundra.  Whatever we settle on for this (if we settle on something),
desert should not be the tag.

I've just realized what prompted the back of my mind into writing the
preceding paragraph.  landcover=barren (or natural=barren) seems
to handle things nicely without worrying about soil/clay/humus
distinctions.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Tagging mailing list



Jul 10, 2020, 15:04 by [hidden email]:
I've just realized what prompted the back of my mind into writing the
preceding paragraph.  landcover=barren (or natural=barren) seems
to handle things nicely without worrying about soil/clay/humus
distinctions.
barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also paved surfaces,
bare rock, areas with poor plant growth and many other cases

as not a native speaker - natural=barren_soil seems more reasonable
and harder to misinterpret
(that specific combination may be horrible for grammar reasons,
I am not a native speaker)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Paul Allen
On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:10, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]> wrote:

Jul 10, 2020, 15:04 by [hidden email]:
I've just realized what prompted the back of my mind into writing the
preceding paragraph.  landcover=barren (or natural=barren) seems
to handle things nicely without worrying about soil/clay/humus
distinctions.
barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also paved surfaces,

Ummm, not really.  Not in British English.  I'd never describe paved surfaces
as barren.  Technically, I suppose they are, but they don't fit my mental
category of barren.

bare rock, areas with poor plant growth and many other cases
as not a native speaker - natural=barren_soil seems more reasonable
and harder to misinterpret

It doesn't feel right to me.  Bare soil, yes.  That's soil with no plants.
Barren soil means incapable of sustaining plant life, and that is
harder to determine.

You can determine that land is barren from aerial imagery (if you
have images from different seasons and years).  You need
on-the-ground survey to determine that it's bare soil.  And I
suspect that such areas are rarely uniformly bare soil but
may have patches of clay, sand, or gravel.  Also, soil
degrades or erodes given enough time - the Sahara was
once fertile land, now it's sand.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Peter Elderson
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
I think bare_soil or barren_soil are ok values for bare/barren soil.

I am convinced that these areas exist, bare soil without spontaneous vegetation, whatever causes it to remain bare for many years.

Barren sounds to me to imply nothing can grow there.Bare sounds more neutral and factual to me, it just says there is nothing but bare soil to mark the area with.Please correct if I am wrong!

My preference would be the direct and factual *=bare_soil

The key does not really matter as long as it's not landuse, because it is not a use of the land. 
landcover=bare_soil sounds right to me.
natural=bare_soil might exclude areas which are bare because of human causes. But it fits in with natural=bare_rock, and it is a sort of null-option for vegetation from rain forest through grassy plains to nothing growing there.
surface=bare_soil is not bad, but surface is generally used as an additional key for a main feature, not a feature in itself. 

Since soil is positively what you see, I don't think it's just negatively defined. It's soil, with an important visible characteristic that it is bare. Soil with vegatation has its own tags, but the absence of such a tag does not indicate that it is bare soil.

All in all, I think natural=bare_soil is the best option, and that it fills an important gap in the mapping of Earth's surface. 

Question: How sure can you be from satellite imagery or aerial photography that an area is actually bare soil?

Best, Peter Elderson


Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 15:10 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <[hidden email]>:



Jul 10, 2020, 15:04 by [hidden email]:
I've just realized what prompted the back of my mind into writing the
preceding paragraph.  landcover=barren (or natural=barren) seems
to handle things nicely without worrying about soil/clay/humus
distinctions.
barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also paved surfaces,
bare rock, areas with poor plant growth and many other cases

as not a native speaker - natural=barren_soil seems more reasonable
and harder to misinterpret
(that specific combination may be horrible for grammar reasons,
I am not a native speaker)
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Matthew Woehlke
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On 10/07/2020 09.32, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:10, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also paved
>> surfaces,
>
> Ummm, not really.  Not in British English.  I'd never describe paved
> surfaces as barren.  Technically, I suppose they are, but they don't
> fit my mental category of barren.

As someone who desperately wishes his gravel driveway *was* barren, I'm
afraid I'm inclined to agree with Mateusz Konieczny :-).

--
Matthew

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
123