Talk:Tag:natural=landform

Why?

• What's the advantage of natural=landform vs. just natural=* and cutting out the middleman? Looked at from the other direction, why not use natural=landform for EVERYTHING, except maybe something obvious like water or trees. natural=tundra seems like a prime example where landform tagging is gratuitous. On the other hand, more abstract terrain features like moraines, pingos, and eskers seem to have more of a claim to landform, in the same way that place=bay or place=cove might be less sloppy for a node than natural=bay. --Hamish 01:08, 9 September 2012 (BST)

I think this tag was created to easier transform CanVec data into OSM tags. i.e. instead of finding out that a specific CanVec code is natural=sand they have used the CanVec documentation and found out it is natural=landform+landform=sand. In other words, natural=landform is the result of sloppy research, and as you say, most of these tags can be substituted with existing natural=* or similar tags, for the few that is missing, a proper proposal (for example natural=tundra instead of natural=landform+landform=tundra) would be more helpful. --Skippern 18:50, 9 September 2012 (BST)

And surprise, somebody have found out by themselves they could tag it, and even started a proposal 2 years ago?! --Skippern 18:53, 9 September 2012 (BST)

gis and cad

" WARNING: please do not clear landform=tundra_polygon tag; it is not a 'geometry polygon' in terms of GIS and CAD systems, but real land form in permafrost"

@Chnav: - can you explain what you meant by https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:natural%3Dlandform&diff=prev&oldid=1442990 ?

Why it would be a good reason to avoid changing to more standard natural=tundra or natural=fell ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)