[Tagging] Tagging of topographic areas with a name

Yuri D'Elia wavexx at users.sourceforge.net
Thu Aug 8 15:47:45 UTC 2013

On 08/07/2013 10:19 PM, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 06.08.2013 15:51, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/45.2466/6.0866
>> which has been tagged with a multipoligon relation.
>> Unfortunately, the relation has some problems:
>> - not rendered anywhere?
> This is a super-relation, with other relations as members. This is not
> allowed for multipolygon relations. It should rather be a
> type=collection relation. This is how water areas such as riverbanks use
> to be joined, and I use collection relations for sets of rocks etc. too.
> Don't expect dumb renderers like Mapnik to render superrelations, though.

Very good explaination.

>> It seems to me that the closest tagging scheme might be a loose area
>> with place=locality. Would that be a good idea?
> That depends on what the name belongs to. If it's the name of a lake,
> forest, or other "physical" feature, place=* would be just wrong.

After reading all the replies, it seems that if a group of lakes has a
name, I would probably use either a multipolygon (if feasible) or a
super-relation, with the appropriate natural tag.

Though for places without actual physical attributes, place=location
sounds reasonable.

It also looks like that the ThunderForest maps are correctly rendering
the place=location tag:


I will now convert this group to a super-relation.

My issue with normal multipolygons is also that smaller, unnamed lakes
inherit the name of the relation, which is incorrect.

> These proposals are somewhat obsolete, as natural=* has widely been
> accepted as the key for all geomorphological features. See
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural, group 3. A valley is
> just the complement of a ridge or arete. Just draw a line along the
> valley and tag it with natural=valley.

I still have doubts about this. For the valley I'm speaking about the
whole region, which is an area.

By looking at your next pointer (about mountain_range), it looks like I
can follow the same scheme and use region_type=valley as a subtype.

>> 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.
> natural=mountain_range is already in use for the Alps. The mountain
> groups within the Eastern Alps are tagged place=region, see the members
> of relation 2113486.

This has been incredibly helpful!

I assume this is the data that is being used to render the topographic
map at dianacht.de? (http://geo.dianacht.de/topo/)

More information about the Tagging mailing list