Talk:Tag:natural=stone
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)
- I made the edit as restriction seemed weird, nonviable and violating verifiability standards Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:24, 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.