Outdoors vs Outside vs Nature

inside is actually worse, looking through some of it's posts it's being used some times in the sense of cum_inside and x-ray so hopefully with this alias people will notice they made a mistake and will try and find a suitable tag.

Even if the outdoors tag is useless and vague regarding location, outside is conceptually vague on top of that so we should go with the less of two evils: outdoors.

Nature as a tag doesn't necessarily have to indicate 'outdoor's. There are natural environments one can call 'nature' in enclosed spaces.

My suggestion would be the use of outdoors for the time being. Outside is exceptionally vague, while Outdoors gives enough of a concept that further tags can define. Outside is merely a place indicator, while Outdoors carries the cultural implications of being 'outside a place of safety/enclosed area', which for our purposes carries more meaning.

In this manner things are more clearly delineated. Cave + Natural = enclosed environment, Outdoors + Natural = picture has a natural setting in which it is unenclosed, etcetc.

For the most part, I agree with 0xCCBA696. If anything, I think there could be a niche for the 'outside' tag in filling in pictures where a person has left an enclosed space but is not clearly 'outside', ie if a picture had someone on the patio. They are 'outside', but since it's still a semi-enclosed space for the most part saying it is 'outdoors' isn't appropriate either.

So perhaps there is depth for 'outside' as a stopgap between outdoors and no, where things aren't so clear. Perhaps not.