<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>To elaborate on my previous response, now that I'm back at a computer:</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr">Would <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4992960980">https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4992960980</a> be an example of (or very similar to) what you're talking about?</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div>I've been told that one is a local reference point ("25 Short", ie. 25 feet short of 10k), and at least one article (<a href="https://rootsrated.com/stories/a-quick-and-dirty-guide-to-the-best-backcountry-skiing-in-jackson-hole">https://rootsrated.com/stories/a-quick-and-dirty-guide-to-the-best-backcountry-skiing-in-jackson-hole</a>) backs that up. The old USGS quad does have a point elevation of 9975' on that knob, but it looks to more properly be a shoulder of a larger mountain, not a proper mountain on its own.</div><div><br></div><div>I'm not suggesting that the current tagging is correct, but in this case (and I believe in some others, although I don't even have anecdotes to back that up), point elevation marks on USGS maps have become the "names" for local topographical features. They're a little wonky on the on-the-ground-verifiability (you can easily verify that a height-of-land exists there, but I don't know that there's a sign or survey marker indicating "this is 9975" or "this is 25 Short"), but [some] locals who travel in the vicinity will use the reference. So it seems like something that may be very reasonable to map, but I don't know what the best tagging scheme is. I do think that normalizing to meters loses the meaning in the current tag-for-the-renderer scheme, because a '3040m' label isn't going to translate well to '25 Short' or '9975' unless you happen to particularly good at math.</div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:53 AM Dave Swarthout <<a href="mailto:daveswarthout@gmail.com">daveswarthout@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">This is simply a way to get an otherwise unnamed peak to render and also, I suspect, to sidestep the inconvenience of converting the elevation to meters. AFAIK, there are no peaks with the generic name "Point" on any USGS Topos. In addition, placing the elevation into the name is another trick that should be discouraged.<br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:38 PM Mateusz Konieczny <<a href="mailto:matkoniecz@tutanota.com" target="_blank">matkoniecz@tutanota.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div>If it is a peak then ele=XXX and noname=yes would be OK.<br></div><div><br></div><div>If it is not a peak it should not be present at all - otherwise it opens way to importing<br></div><div>LIDAR data into OSM (and there are datasets with resolution of 5 cm, dumping it<br></div><div>into OSM would be case of unverifiable data making it impossible to edit).<br></div><div><br></div><div>I opened <a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1703462" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1703462</a> to reduce chance that it will be discussed <br></div><div>and forgotten.<br></div><div><br></div><div>If this is really used name - then it would be OK but my bet is that this is not an actually used name.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Mar 7, 2019, 7:04 PM by <a href="mailto:miketho16@gmail.com" target="_blank">miketho16@gmail.com</a>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail-m_-6591675531436607050gmail-m_-8569794238872285280tutanota_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div dir="ltr"><div>It seems that there are a couple of mappers in Colorado US (at least, perhaps mapping in other areas as well) who are adding spot elevations (presumably from USGS Topo maps) to OSM tagging them as <br></div><div>natural=peak<br></div><div>name=Point (elevation in feet)<br></div><div><br></div><div>For example:<br></div><div dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4601119717" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4601119717</a><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div>What does the community think about this?<br></div><div><br></div><div>natural=peak might be ok if said spot elevation is really a local high point (some are not). The name I am less sure of. If this belongs on the map at all, it should probably have an ele tag, with value in meters.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div> </div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail-m_-6591675531436607050gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Dave Swarthout<br>Homer, Alaska<br>Chiang Mai, Thailand<br>Travel Blog at <a href="http://dswarthout.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://dswarthout.blogspot.com</a></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-us mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Talk-us@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Kevin Broderick</div><div><a href="mailto:ktb@kevinbroderick.com" target="_blank">ktb@kevinbroderick.com</a></div></div></div>