How are you?
I’m an OSM mapper from South Korea. Please forgive me for writing this in English to see if it translates well to what I’m trying to convey.
A stone field that is the result of a long period of glacial or volcanic activity is called a ‘block field’, ‘boulder field’, ‘felsenmeer’, etc.
These geological formations often remain bare, but sometimes vegetation of mosses or grasses forms on them.
My question is this.
I was wondering what the geologic formations with vegetation forming on top of a felsenmeer are called in academic terms.
Not a geologist: A bit of reading did not find me a pure academic term. Felsenmeer and Blockhalde are in use in the German language. In French there is Chaos de pierres, de rochers, de rocs. English term seems block field (from this engineering paper).
I see there is ecological dispute on the subject in South Korea. If you want to produce a map of those areas from openstreetmap data, maybe the Key:geological - OpenStreetMap Wiki can offer you a tool? E.g. rock_glacier is also a morphological term. Can mix with wood/forest or just laid criss-cross.
I would not use natural=boulder_field when the area is covered with trees.
Hi adreamy, nice to see you in the german category although I wonder why you put this question here instead of “General talk” category where it would be better placed in my opionion.
I have seen similar places with forest having grown on bare rock underground in other places of the world, but I have never heard a special scientific term for such, neither from geological site nor from biological site. I am sure if such term would exist you would find it in the Wikipedia article about Gotjawal Forest but there it is simply called “forest on rocky ground”.
It wouldn’t be easier and clearer to tag the component parts. Just use natual=wood;boulder_field or natural=wood + barrier=block. This avoids adding special tags for an area that is full of trees and stones.
Hello, geologist here to try and help out.
The short answer is, there isn’t (a term in geologic academic literature) because the vegetation isn’t important. It’s “cover” much like soil or other “non-rocks” that hide the underlying rocks/minerals. Also, the boulders themselves aren’t “in-place” which precludes a field geologist from making observations that would be important to the larger picture of the sedimentology/structure of the area. The boulders can still be used to ascertain other genetic relationships and understanding other geologic processes but whether they are covered or not and what they might be covered with isn’t of interest so there’s not really a differentiating term used.
You may try looking at literature under Pedology (soils) or Geobiology/Biogeology which may take a more academic approach to this interface of rock substrate and biology.
