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

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 08.07.2014 16:14, SomeoneElse napisał(a):

> Currently taginfo suggests almost no usage of peak like this
> 
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/peak#values

Yes, but that's exactly where the problem is: I think people are simply 
cheating now. =} They see no other peak tags in wiki, so they use just 
the one they see. Using natural=peak almost everywhere instead of 
man_made=peak, when that would be the most reasonable way to tag, make 
me think this way.

> and see also:
> 
> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=peak#combinations

There's nothing interesting IMHO - name, ele etc. are all OK, but they 
don't help with the problem.

> The "Proposed_features" page seems confused about tagging and
> rendering though - given that local terrain height is available in
> most parts of the world from external sources, couldn't a map that
> wanted to suppress hillocks do so simply by comparing elevation with
> that?  I'm not sure why you'd need to tag the height of "things around
> thing A" on "thing A" itself.

I think tagging, documentation and rendering are somehow intertwined. 
That's why people are cheating. It's very tempting to have peak visible 
through natural=peak even if you know for sure it's not natural.

So let's look the other way: why we tag the mountain peaks, in the first 
place, if it's even more simple to identify them by comparing elevation 
than hills and hillocks?

Additional (general) problem is we have poor terrain representation. On 
the main page only the OpenCycleMap has this kind of data visible, but 
from what I saw it's effective only for high mountains. For micromapping 
it just doesn't work at all.

> Also, the normal way to "define" OSM features is by going out and
> mapping them - so I'd go out and do that first, rather than worry
> about getting a "proposal" "accepted".

I'm not that worried - if people won't accept it, it just won't be 
accepted and I can live with that: maybe I am totally wrong or that is 
not the best way of dealing with my problem? Go and tell me!

What worries me more is that I don't really know how to clearly show how 
complex this problem is. It's not only about tagging documentation, but 
also good elevation/shading background, tags rendering and people 
behavior. There may be even more! =}

> start from here if I were you") but it's not meant to be - OSM needs
> mappers far more than it needs proposal writers.  If you think that
> it's important to classify a natural=peak as a hillock go and have a
> look at it, and if it looks like a hillock to you, tag it as one!

Well, I am the active mapper for years now =} , but that's the wall I 
hit when micromapping and I try to fix it. I see this proposal as the 
next level of scratching my itch, not leaving the base work.

-- 
Mambałaga