Talk:Tag:natural=stone

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Should be allowed on areas too. Boulders are sometimes very large, and for climbable boulders the space is needed to tag climbing routes.

-- Sasq

Arrived by truck

Say how to map the exact same feature, but if it arrived by truck and crane. Jidanni (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Also I thought we are supposed to be mapping the facts on the ground, irrespective of "time of arrival" etc. Jidanni (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

OK I posted https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65464/two-stones-arrived-naturally-vs-arrived-by-truck-tag-differently Jidanni (talk) 12:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to ask the same Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
I made the edit as restriction seemed weird, nonviable and violating verifiability standards Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Mateusz for fixing it! --Dieterdreist (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
Why not using the usual moved=yes already used on megaliths for instance? https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8177522716

A megalith is not a natural stone but may have been moved. A natural stone may be moved. "facts on the ground" doesn't prevent people to know that it has been moved, start_end is not "verifiable on the ground" either but verifiable through other means to. If you don't know, don't tag. KISS --Nospam2005 (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

All I know is in some places there are no rocks, I mean stones, OK, big stones, except ones that have been hauled in by trucks. So having to say moved=yes for each one just because where other people live there are plenty ... is frustrating. Jidanni (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Getting rid of stone_type=grooves

Here the non-sense is close to its limits. In that sense it's typically British ;-).

If a stone has grooves, by definition it's not natural any-more (but I'm happy to keep natural=stone}.

I propose a different tagging: grooves=yes.

That way:

  • We don't use the ugly stone_type.
  • It's clear that grooves are on the stone, not the stone. And this tagging may be valid on other objects.
  • We can keep stone=* to define the kind of stone.

Any objection? --Nospam2005 (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Diameter

width, height sound great for rectangular boulders.

But key:diameter makes more sense for round boulders:

Diameter plus height, for cylindrical rocks.

And simply diameter, for spherical rocks.

Jidanni (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)