[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Enhancing natural=peak tag
Daniel Koć
daniel at xn--ko-wla.pl
Tue Jul 8 17:07:33 UTC 2014
W dniu 08.07.2014 17:06, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
Thanks for your remarks!
> 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)
No clear distinction doesn't mean there's no distinction at all. And
that's what we have now: no even the slightest distinction between all
of them in OSM, while in the real observation (and in Wikipedia
articles) it exists.
There are always corner cases (some even funny, like in "The Englishman
Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain"), but if you are not sure,
you can just leave it as general "peak", and when you're sure, you have
currently no tool to make the distinction on the map.
> 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.)
2.1. It can be done, but peaks are also the orientation points/surfaces.
Some of them have names because of that, some other do not, but many of
them are of some importance to the people. And I want to have them
reasonably tagged and mapped.
2.2. It can be done ("maybe in the future"), but ("now for sure") it
isn't and we don't have too many ways of showing the terrain in OSM,
while in the real life it is as prominent to see as buildings, ways etc.
2.3. The available (I mean technically AND copyright-wise) elevation
data quality is weak.
--
Mambałaga
More information about the Tagging
mailing list