[Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name

fly lowflight66 at googlemail.com
Tue Aug 6 15:19:35 UTC 2013

On 06.08.2013 16:27, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
> 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.

Did you have a look the picture of the week [1] a few weeks ago ?

>> 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.

No this will not work. We need some sort of area and probably more than
one tag, plus a hut might be in a valley, a mountain subsubgroup, a
mountain subgroup and a mountain group and still in an extra region

>> 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 :(.

Still I think it is the only way to go

> 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 think the best would be to invent a new boundary type.

boundary=topologic or geographic

and some ranking for the categories

As the borders are often not that clear and also not that important they
should not be rendered and do not have to be that exact but for
rendering names like in [1] we need them.

My 2 cents


More information about the Tagging mailing list