[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence
kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Tue Sep 25 03:14:46 UTC 2018
On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:25 PM John Willis <johnw at mac.com> wrote:
> it would be nice if there was a "caldera relation" to connect them all
together, which would allow the rendering of the named, yet overall
unimportant =peaks to be reduced.
The idea of a relation that would link a peak to its key col and line
parent would do nicely for that. All of the peaks around a caldera, except
for the highest, are going to be subsidiary peaks, directly or indirectly,
of the true summit.
I live in country with long ridges, and almost anything with enough
isolation and a little bit of prominence winds up being a named summit.
Otherwise, you would get into the situation where you call everything a
subsidiary peak, and that doesn't feel quite right on a ridge like this.
And there are clusters like this one: One of those has over 600 m of
prominence. The one next to it has about 60 m of prominence. Which is
which? The elevations of the summits differ by less than 10 m. (The locals
count them as distinct peaks.)
I'm fine with listing prominence, so that renderers can decide for
themselves what's 'significant', but I think that to distinguish 'mountain'
from 'hill' we need to leave the final decision to the locals.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging