[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

Andy Townsend ajt1047 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 24 20:08:45 UTC 2018


On 24/09/18 20:24, Fredrik wrote:
> Ref prominence, there is 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=hill.
>
> 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 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain ).

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.

Best Regards,

Andy




More information about the Tagging mailing list