Talk:Tag:natural=gorge

Why not natural=valley with valley=gorge?

The definition of natural=valley appears to include all gorges: "A valley is an elongated natural depression flanked by ridges or ranges of mountains or hills, and at least partially formed by fluvial degration." I believe a gorge is a valley with fairly steep sides. The key valley= is already used with valley=ravine. Why not add valley=gorge too? This would mean database users would only have to look for natural=valley, but could choose to also check the value of "value=*" for the type, aka gorge, canyon, ravine, etc. --Jeisenbe (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Look where valley=ravine is used: It is concentrated within a small area in Poland, where a single used tagged all valleys with natural=valley + valley=ravine. So it isn't really in use for gorges. Of course we could use a valley=* subtag, just as we could use a ridge=arete subtag (with natural=ridge) or a cliff=both subtag (with natural=cliff) instead of natural=arete (which is more or less the inverse landform to natural=gorge). It's all a matter of taste and convention. The current convention for most natural=* features is to use separate natural=* tags instead of subtags. We also use landuse=meadow/orchard/vineyard/etc instead of landuse=farmland + farmland=meadow/orchard/vineyard. I personally like natural=arete and natural=gorge, because different main tags suggest different rendering, and it's definitely a good idea to render a gorge differently than the valley it is part of, because otherwise you couldn't distinguish the labels which are in about the same place (and same goes for the map symbols). It would also be confusing to have two overlapping natural=valley lines in an editor. --Fkv (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)