<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 18:25, Jan Michel <<a href="mailto:jan@mueschelsoft.de">jan@mueschelsoft.de</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On 29.09.19 17:07, Paul Allen wrote:<br></blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">> There are people who are VERY interested in these things. People who <br>
> want to know where Munros, Donalds, Grahams, Marilyns, TuMPs, etc. are.<br>
<br>
Well... There is no documentation of these tags in the OSM wiki.<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>True. Perhaps that means they should be documented as opposed to being</div><div>deleted upon sight. Or perhaps something else should be done about them.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
ael mentioned that these are well-known terms. I tried several <br>
translators and dictionaries but didn't find anything.<br>
A Google search only finds the wiki "List of mountains and hills<br>
on the British islands", but not much more related information.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>When I tried it I got a lot of hits, but the wikipedia article seemed the obvious</div><div>one to mention here, as it's fairly comprehensive. I learned far more about the</div><div>subject than I ever wanted to know from it.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
These seem to be very local terms that are not used outside of Scotland <br>
(British Isles?). </blockquote><div><br></div><div>British Isles. With regional variations in where such terms are commonly used. Only</div><div>Scotland has Munros but, in the rest of the British Isles, peaks matching the criteria of</div><div>a Munro are called Furths.<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">In general we oppose such local terms as keys because <br>
they won't be of any use outside a small area.<br></blockquote><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">There are equivalents outside the British Isles, such as the Eight-thousanders</div><div class="gmail_quote">(peaks over 8,000 m).<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Looking at the tag history, most of these were added in a few larger <br>
edits in 2014 and 2015.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Possibly by a small number of users who were also hillbaggers. Doesn't really <br></div><div>affect whether they should be documented or deleted. At some point we'll have</div><div>mapped all the rivers and streams in the world, and years will go by with nobody</div><div>mapping a river or stream - would that be grounds for deleting rivers and streams?<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
What information do these terms contain exactly? What I understand from <br>
the Wiki page, the names are determined by three properties: The <br>
location (to be found from boundary relations), the height (tagged as <br>
'ele') and the prominence (tagged as 'prominence').<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If I'm reading it correctly, the location is the position of the peak. Position, elevation</div><div>and prominence can be determined from ele=* and prominence=*, but those are</div><div>not always mapped. The other factor, which you didn't mention, is isolation. However,</div><div>there's no quantitative metric of isolation, so that hits a verifiability problem. The nature</div><div>of the peak CAN be determined from existing tags, but only if those tags are actually used</div><div>(and only for the types where isolation isn't a factor). There's not much use of <br></div><div>prominence=* as yet.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
My very personal conclusion / opinion: These tags are undiscussed, <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yep. But there are a lot of de facto tags that are undiscussed. Sadly.<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
undocumented,</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yep. But that is fixable. If we choose to. Even if the documentation says "Don't use</div><div>these tags" :).<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> not well-understood outside a small area</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Perhaps more of a problem. Although that could only be a problem because of the</div><div>way they've been tagged, as opposed to the information in the tags. See on.<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> and useless because they can be derived from a few documented, verifiable tags.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Only where those tags are present. There are many peaks without an elevation or prominence.</div><div>There are many peaks with an elevation but no prominence.</div><div><br></div><div>However, because I've had to do more digging to answer you, my thinking on this has changed</div><div>a little. These aren't really describing physical characteristics so much as the appearance of</div><div>a particular peak on a list of peaks matched by some characteristics (not all of which are</div><div>necessarily physical). E.g., the Wainwrights are the 214 fells in the English Lake District that</div><div> have a chapter in one of Alfred Wainwright's Pictorial Guides to the Lakeland Fells. As such,</div><div> I think these would be better handled by relations (assuming it wouldn't be a database killer), if</div><div> they're handled at all. They're just lists, in the same way that a cycling route is a list of ways that</div><div> somebody decided made up a cycling route: not an inherent physical property but an aggregation.</div><div>Except, of course, cycling routes often have signs.<br></div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div>Paul</div><div><br></div></div></div>