[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence
ajt1047 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 24 20:08:45 UTC 2018
On 24/09/18 20:24, Fredrik wrote:
> Ref prominence, there is
> There is an attempt to document what a hill is and how its separated
> from a (natural=)peak by separating them on prominence.
Are you trying to create a new term there, are you trying to reflect
existing English language usage or existing OSM usage?
In OSM there are a bunch of "natural=hill" already, and the current
usage near me https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/CcO seems to be "the highest
place around, but not very high, and certainly not high enough to be
worth tagging as a natural=peak".
In British English a hill is just something that's not as big as a
mountain; there's no special prominence requirement. The actual size
varies depending on who you talk to (see e.g. the different sizes quoted
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill and
Neither of those seems to match that wiki page. There _are_ lists of
mountains and hills based on prominence (see e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_(geography) - I'm sure other
regions have similar lists).
It'd be great to map prominence, provided that the source used was
"clean" licence-wise. I'm not sure that current usage is - it'd be nice
to think that https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/CcU was all based on survey or
calculation based on suitable elevation sources, but I somehow doubt that.
More information about the Tagging