[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence
johnw at mac.com
Tue Sep 25 00:25:05 UTC 2018
> On Sep 25, 2018, at 5:08 AM, Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is an attempt to document what a hill is and how its separated from a (natural=)peak by separating them on prominence.
TL;DR - you are dealing with a very high volume of named “sub-peaks / prominences / whatever-mountaineering-term-you-want ” on large mountains *and* a large volume of small and modest hills in valley floors or otherwise flat terrain - Perhaps prominence can handle them, but please remember that this is not *just* about defining sub-peaks of very tall mountains - there are a lot of little tiny hills that in some cultures would never be named that have officially mapped names in others.
There are landscape types *and* cultural naming traditions that lend themselves to using =peak exclusively - places with very large mountains with easily identifiable points as the top.
in California, at least down in San Diego, naming almost all mountains using =peak is probably acceptable. tiny lumps and bumps on the mountains and on the valleys simply aren't named (at least offically, I have looked at a lot of topos). Official maps are not cluttered with mountains names.
I was amazed when I moved to Japan - the mountains are not only much denser, but they are very jagged. And since people lived in hamlets around each of them for hundreds and hundreds of years, every lump, bump, and little hill the size of a 4 story building is a named “mountain”.
Google even makes fun of it when they made an online ad for “okay google” about a tourist family that confused the 30m tall “Mt Fuji” in my town with the iconic Mount Fuji when getting directions.
I was browsing reddit a couple days ago, and someone posted a map from 1843 that someone drew of the regions surrounding Mount Fuji. it is roughly 400x300 KM.
every one of those little green bumps is a full =peak. there are probably 5X little bumps and lumps on them that are named. **And then** there are the little hills that poke out of a valley floors by 20-50 meters that also get officially named - you could hide them behind an average size school building - but are named. local natural paper maps have names cluttering up every available spot on the paper.
even modest hills get rendered the same as massive volcanoes.
Also, several caldera volcanoes are nationally or internationally famous, and they have named every little point along their asymmetrical rim - the volcano tag for them should be rendered z8, and the smaller hills around the top at z16 - but as it stands there is no way to say “these little points on the rim are insignificant compared to the 2000m tall volcano visible to 20 million people and namesake to thousands of things and places, and these 6 little points are only important to people hiking nearby. “
trying to map all of these as =peaks ***reeks*** of data pollution.
I hope a good solution is found - EVEN IF it is just the mapper’s intuition. enough input should provide consensus.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging