[Tagging] landform promontory
joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Thu Oct 4 02:31:08 UTC 2018
> >>Where are these features located?
> >Inland. Not near the sea.
> >Not all ridges end as a promontory - some have gradual slopes. Not all
> promontory are a peak, they may have a line at about the same height
> leading away from them.
> >They are named as 'point' here but the closest in wikipedia I could find
> is promontory. So I used that term.
Interesting. So this is a "node" on a ridge which doesn't qualify as a
summit because it's topographic prominence is zero (it isn't the highest
point, even locally). But it looks kind of like a pointy peak from the low
ground around it, and therefore has a local toponym.
I actually think there are a number of named features currently tagged
natural=peak which are really points or promontories by this definition.
Eg: https://www.opentopomap.org/#map=14/51.82578/10.68691 vs
It would be nice to have a more precise tag, so that mappers would not
mis-tag named points of hills or ridges as peaks when they are not actually
a summit. Place=locality doesn't give any that it is a geological feature.
I would personally use natural=*, because it fits with all the similar
features: natural=ridge, natural=peak, natural=volcano, natural=cliff,
It would be somewhat ambiguous to use natural=promontory, because as
wikipedia says, this could be a headland or cape, as well as an inland
point or promontory above a valley. Natural=point could also work. However,
if you document the tag with a short wiki page (proposal) that would be
enough to avoid confusion, and we could also put a note on the natural=cape
wiki page warning against mistagging with natural=point or =promontory.
Perhaps 'cape' should be dropped in favour of promontory as that could be
> used for both land and sea? :)
PS: ha ha :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging