[Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name

Yuri D'Elia wavexx at users.sourceforge.net
Tue Aug 6 14:27:20 UTC 2013

On 08/06/2013 04:14 PM, Janko Mihelić wrote:
> 2013/8/6 Yuri D'Elia <wavexx at users.sourceforge.net>
>> Similarly, we have areas for entire mountain groups, which are
>> fundamental for a topographic map in the alps. Again, the boundaries of
>> such areas are not so important, but it's mostly used as an indication
>> for the name placement.
> I don't know about the others, but I've been thinking about this one, and
> there's a simple solution. Drawing a big polygon around the whole mountain
> is not very effective. There are no clear boundaries for a mountain. But
> what we can do is put a tag like "mountain=*" on all "natural=peak" nodes.
> Maybe even on alpine_huts and other features. That way some software could
> find arbitrary boundaries using that data and SRTM data.
> Maybe valleys can be solved in the same way.

Might still be problematic. A forest, sometime lakes, rivers for sure
and many other big polygons will cross the boundary of the mountain group.

It's kind of unfortunate, because a mountain group will span across
italian regions and include parts of several valleys. Of course,
likewise, valleys have the same problem. It's not a hierarchical
information either.

It's really a topographical information, and I feel like tagging objects
within or using relations might be really problematic. Just imagine what
kind of "spotty" tagging would you have for big mountain groups. Huts
and peaks would definitely not be enough for a decent boundary.

But also drawing big areas is kind of ugly :(.

Fortunately, the boundaries of the area are not important in themselves.
Nobody renders valley or mountain group borders. But we *do* use such
boundaries for name placement.

I'm thorn.

More information about the Tagging mailing list