Talk:Tag:natural=rock

Hi, I wondered about how to add the rocks material (searched for it but didn't found anything). So maybe we can use rock_type=* here analogically to leaf_type=* (natural=tree) !?

I'm not sure. Is there is a standard nomenclature in petrology like there is in biology (taxonomy)? Maybe we can use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_rock_types&oldid=640545341 as reference ?!?

Until somebody comes up with a better solution I will start using it. --Bmog (talk)

Just rock=*, no _type. Rock is a term for a single, free-standing rock (as in natural=rock), but also for rock mass (German: Gestein). The wikipedia page is titled "rock types" in order to avoid confusion, but it's no scientific term.

Minerals make up rock. Rock can be classified by composition, grain size and shape, or genesis. The wikipedia page is an unsctructured list of terms regardless of classification. It even incoporates terms for sequences or bedding of rock, e.g. turbidite which is a sequence of shale, sandstone, and possibly conglomerate. I think that we need a tighter definition for a rock=* key in OSM if we want applications to make use of it.

--Fkv (talk) 10:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

rock=* is fine - less characters ;-), I simply suggested rock_type analogous to the leaf_type tag.

Ok I see. Agreed - a tighter definition would be good, but nevertheless until someone come up with something better I will use this list - for the present :-)

--Bmog (talk)

natural=rock on surfaces

natural=rock seams allowed on surfaces, is that so ? because if it does, how is it different from natural=bare_rock on surfaces ? sletuffe (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

difference with natural=stone

Description wording is : A notable rock or group of rocks, with at least one of them firmly attached to the underlying bedrock. I find it vague, why wouldn't we map the only one "firmly attached" with natural=rock or even natural=bare_rock and the others "not firmly attached" with natural=stone ? sletuffe (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually I think anything having to do with rocks, be it natural=rock, natural=bare_rock, natural=scree, natural=stone, natural=cliff and maybe others, to be clearer defined. I have also seen borderline use between natural=rock and seamark:type=rock, which is a result of vague definitions. seamark:type=rock is the only tag needed for rocks below mean tide level, i.e. outside the coastline. For the other tags, cleaning up definitions, and improving the wiki pages would help in removing some of the confusion around these tags. --Skippern (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I improved (hopefully) and cleaned up definition/distinction of stone vs rock vs bare_rock due to basic geoscience knowledge.--geow (talk) 13:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Many renderers don't show seamark:type=rock but they do show natural=rock or natural=boulder. There are no charts for many inland waters. Adding an additional tag beside the seamark tag makes the navigation hazard show up on a general render. Is there an issue with a redundant natural tag? HMWamboldt (talk) 01:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

No, and anyway I would rather consider seamark:type=rock as redundant like some other seamark: tags Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Stacks

The description may include the stacks. « a steep and often vertical column or columns of rock in the sea near a coast, formed by wave erosion ». This type of geological formation sometimes has a famous place name (relevant on a map) but is not actually a natural=peak. With the current rendering, the name of the rocks does not appear on map.

--Horace (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Material

I know it is granite. Mention how to tag? Jidanni (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)