[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Enhancing natural=peak tag

fly lowflight66 at googlemail.com
Tue Jul 8 16:22:54 UTC 2014


Am 08.07.2014 17:52, schrieb fly:
> Am 08.07.2014 17:06, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>>
>> 2014-07-08 15:59 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć <daniel at xn--ko-wla.pl
>> <mailto:daniel at xn--ko-wla.pl>>:
>>
>>     I just made the proposal page for discussion about enhancing
>>     natural=peak tag:
>>
>>     http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/__wiki/Proposed_features/peak
>>     <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/peak>
>>
>>     This is my first attempt to define OSM features.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not sure this is something we'd want in OSM for at least 2 reasons:
>>
>> 1. As you (and wikipedia) write, there is no clear distinction between
>> mountain and hill, so this is subjective (you write it in the proposal)
>>
>> 2. The analysis of the other peaks in the area and the topography in
>> general can be done automatically both, based on OSM data and on
>> additional elevation data (like from hgt rasters, Aster, SRTM, other
>> DEMs, etc.)
>>
>> So this is probably not something we'd have to map manually, as it could
>> be automatically derived. I agree that the current rendering is not
>> always optimal, but this could be resolved in the rendering system, no
>> need to do it in the base data. Or maybe I got you wrong?
> 
> 
> If you really want to get some useful information in the data you could
> have a look at topographic prominence [1] and isolation [2] (german page
> is much better). Though, Martin is right that this information could be
> automatically calculated.
> 
> Cheers fly
> 

Sorry forgot the links:

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_isolation



More information about the Tagging mailing list