<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Mar 19, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <<a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com" class="">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">prominence and topographic isolation,</span></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">Neither are good measures of mountains, besides for record holders. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- There are bigger volcanoes than Mt Fuji in Russia, just north of Japan, that no one knows the names of (internationally). They are equally isolated. Klyuchevskaya Sopka is over 4200m (fuji is 3776), and equally as isolated as Mt Fuji - and no one outside of that region knows it’s name. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Who can name one of the other 12 peaks in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California that are over 14,000 feet tall, within 500 feet as tall as Mt Whitney (14,505)? I can name Mt Langley, but that is about it. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">- Mt fuji is climbed by 100X (?) more people during climbing season than Everest. So should Mt Everest be rendered later? What About Denali? Few people climb it. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But these are all record holding - international, national, or regional mountains - this idea of mapping mountains via prominence or topography completely and utterly fails at a provincial level. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regionally and provincially important mountains are often more important than their taller neighbors due to their proximity to towns, or odd shapes - not any height or isolation. Their proximity to the towns ingrains them into the culture, through naming, religious significance, or tourism reasons.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Right next to Mt Fuji is a collapsed volcano and caldera called Mt Hakone <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/hNSC9NwsHg42" class="">https://goo.gl/maps/hNSC9NwsHg42</a> . it is very short now, and not nearly as prominent as nearby Mt Ashitaka or (of course) Mt Fuji. But Hakone is a very famous place - though it’s height and prominence would say otherwise. People all over Japan (and many international tourists) come there buy eggs cooked in sulfurous vents and enjoy the hot spring resorts inside the caldera. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In my region, Mt Akagi is famous. <a href="https://goo.gl/maps/8A5STm9VwAs" class="">https://goo.gl/maps/8A5STm9VwAs</a> & <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Akagi" class="">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Akagi</a> . WWII buffs may recognize the name, as the Carrier Akagi (lost at the battle of midway) is named after it. It is the namesake of hundreds, perhaps thousands of places and things (I drink "Mt. Akaki” Sake). However, Mt Kessamaru is higher than Mt Akagi nearby. Most people don’t know of it, nor care. This mountain, and two other visible, but low mountains are called the “three mountains” of my provience - though they are surrounded by taller ones. And the little points around the caldera (some of which Google renders alongside Mt Akagi’s label) are only locally known, and shouldn’t be rendered except at high zoom. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">OSM is for gathering data - lots of lots of locally based knowledge of things. Mountains are no different. Trying to decide what mountains are worth labeling at different zooms via some GIS data is ridiculous. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So we render them all equally - which is equally as ridiculous. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So we will never have a better map / map data than the random GIS data that everyone already has and already uses to make inferior, confusing maps - which is what I’m trying to fix in OSM. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Javbw</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>