On 12.07.2014 09:59, Christoph Hormann wrote: > 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".
I wouldn't have started this thread without checking a few examples. These areas are predominant in high regions of the Alps, the Pyrenees and of Corsica. They look "rocky" on areal images. The definition you cited conforms with natural=bare_rock, except for scree, which is natural=scree. Some of the areas could also be tagged as natural=fell. But at least natural=bare_rock wouldn't be any wronger than natural=rock. One difference between the Corine import and the Antartica import is that the former was done before the tag natural=bare_rock was invented, while the latter was done when it had already been approved. I suppose that the Corine import would have created natural=bare_rock areas if that tag had been around by that time. > 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. If these need remapping, it might be better to refine the definition first, which is my primary goal anyway. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
