> Il giorno 07/ott/2014, alle ore 19:40, Dan S <danstowell+...@gmail.com> ha
> scritto:
>
> For example it's not clear to me whether you would
> accept natural=tree (see my first point), but since there are more
> than 4 million of them, I think you are going to have to accept them.
I'm in a hurry now, just a remark: natural=tree should be kept, it does fit
logically into the scheme, it says: one tree. Like a spring, a bay, a wetland,
a rock etc
mud doesn't fit, for natural that would be wetland (with appropriate subtags).
The same for sand, this would be beach or desert or wasteland or ...
"sand" or "mud" aren't geographical features in my understanding, they are
orthogonal and hence are creating conflicts (because you could either tag beach
or sand etc)
What might be disputed is water. In my reading something like lake or pond
would fit better, but this can be done with subtagging as well, like it is
already proposed so I wouldn't change water for historical reasons
cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
