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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2014-07-08 20:08 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć <daniel at xn--ko-wla.pl>:

> If I was to define peak now, I would start with "terrain=peak", and then
> add "descent=natural" or "descent=artificial" to narrow it down when needed.



I agree, man_made=mound isn't a bad idea.

I wouldn't question all peaks and require a subtag like descent=natural for
what can and has in the past sufficiently been described with natual=peak.
If there are a few mounds between the currently tagged objects, you can
always retag those few, but retagging all peaks because there are some
questionable ones between them is not a good idea (IMHO).

In my area there are similar (?) prehistoric objects (tumuli) which have
been used as tombs by the Etruscans:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerveteri#Necropolis_of_the_Banditaccia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerveteri#mediaviewer/File:Banditaccia1.jpg
(these are the most famous ones (Unesco world heritage), but you can also
find them occassionally in other, less well known and mostly unvisited
necropoles)

I have tagged many of them with historic=tomb and tomb=tumulus (and
eventually also with building=tumulus) but they can also be considered
"mounds".

cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140708/3701e03d/attachment.html>