Talk:Tag:natural=fell

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Rudolf in topic Description vs wikipedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is this supposed to be used for grass in the mountain but not fields where farmes collect grass ? Sletuffe 16:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Looks like yes, here is a more complete explanation : fell on wikipedia Sletuffe


distinct from a proposed natural=tundra? tundra would be less vegetated, just lichen, mosses, and other hardy alpine turfs. --Hamish 08:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think it is the same as mountainous tundra, that is mountains above the tree-line. Tundra is all cold areas with vegetation as you describe, fell is an english (brittish) word for high ground with tundra-like nature. As I understand from wikipedia, the word comes from Scandinavia that have mountains called fjäll, they are gently sloping and have large areas above the tree-limit in three zones (low-alpine, medium-alpine, high-alpine), the highest zone, the high-alpine have the vegetation you describe. I guess the high pastures of Switzerland and Austria also is fell.
I wonde rif the high-alpine regions of bare rock is supposed to be mapped by fell too?/Johan Jönsson 17:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Description vs wikipedia

The description "Bare upper lying uncultivated land on high ground, principally covered with grass and often grazed." don't match the definition in wikipedia: "High and barren landscape feature, such as a mountain range or moor-covered hills."

In Wikipedia a fell is a landscape feature not a vegetation feature. Also it is limited to Scandinavia, the Isle of Man, parts of northern England, and Scotland.

I recommend to change the description according to wikipedia. --Rudolf (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Problem is : if you change now the definition of a tag, all 7000 current use will loose their past meaning. Either a mass retag i needed, or create a new tag for "true fell" as defined in wikipedia. sletuffe (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I agree, a mass retag is problematic. We can keep the former definition. Additionally I will add the new value natural=tundra. So the mapper can decide which tag fit the best. Time will show. --Rudolf (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply