On 04.09.2014 17:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > There's the question whether "natural" is appropriate as there are > > also man made steep slopes. > > I think that we do not need that kind of differenciation. There are also > man > made water areas and trees, and we are doing fine without tags like > man_made=tree. > > > > sounds interesting, can you expand about these artificial trees? Or are you > referring to something like this: > http://cdn2.spiegel.de/images/image-478741-galleryV9-axic.jpg > I hope we agree that these shouldn't be tagged as natural=tree?
Yes, because the material is not natural. The supposedly artificial cliffs are of natural material. We can only compare them with planted trees. > A cliff (or steep slope) cannot be man made on its own > > of course it can. Example? > , because it can only > be created by putting up something on one side, or digging off something > on > the other side. So it's actually the adjacent horizontal area that is > man made. > > the whole area can be man_made, e.g. concrete, why not? Say, a building? > I agree in so far as from one point of view we could have a tag that only > describes the shape without referring to natural or man_made (who or why > something is there). But I wouldn't recommend the natural namespace for > this, as people often interpret this literally. natural=cliff is already in use. Please don't make up synonymous tags. > no, you can have an embankment in an otherwise totally plain area, and there > could be this one level change. Example? Why would the build a train or something in the only place prone to erosion? > 2) The syntactic aspect: what's the differece between embankment=yes and > =both? > > yes will either imply both or could mean either onesided or both (i.e. the > details are unknown), that will have to be defined. As it stands, "unknown > if both or left/right" might be the safer assumption. I consider =both safer, because that's the documented meaning so far. > 3) The usage aspect: Do we really want to tag all mountain roads > embankment=left + cutting=right? > > in ultimate detail yes, why not? If people have undertaken the effort to > move and cut into mountains, putting an attribute to a line in a collective > computer database seems relatively feasible, no? No. Cutting into mountains generates a benefit. Mapping slopes doesn't. -- 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