[Tagging] natural=ridge vs natural=arete

Friedrich Volkmann bsd at volki.at
Thu Nov 6 05:38:41 UTC 2014

On 05.11.2014 07:19, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> And it is not just because with the second solution new values
> for main tag will quickly appear (see building=*).

This doesn't matter in this particular case, because natural=ridge and
natural=arete were approved at the same time.

> With second
> scheme there is much smaller pool of people that really understand how
> main_tag should be processed and tagged.
> For example I have enough general knowledge to implement support for
> natural=ridge (everybody knows what it means), but with natural=arete it
> would require at least some learning about specialist terms. Currently I
> have no idea is this tag is even correctly spelled - Wikipedia defines arete
> as "term meaning "virtue" or "excellence"." - and ridge related article is
> titled "arĂȘte". I also have not enough knowledge to decide whatever
> something is ridge or arĂȘte, is it clear term or something fuzzy.

That's why we have a wiki with descriptions. When you find a description
fuzzy or misleading, please improve it.

> Yes, I can learn about it - but I worry about the same happening for more
> things. I am NOT interested in learning about how to recognize different
> different power tower types, I want to tag just power=tower and leave
> further classification to power enthusiast that will use subkeys so
> rendering power towers on my map will be easy to implement.

Your argumentation is based on practical issues, but essentially your
considerations are merely theoretical.

As a data consumer, e.g. when you want to render power towers in a 1:25000
map, you are well advised to have a look at the subtags. Maybe there are
power tower types which represent power towers so small and unimportant that
you find it better to omit those on your 1:25000 map.

Friedrich K. Volkmann       http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

More information about the Tagging mailing list