[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Tue Sep 25 21:46:24 UTC 2018

I don't actually mind 'natural=peak' for any named local maximum
elevation. 'Peak' in one of its senses simply means the high or most
important point of anything. You can speak of the peak of a hill, or
of the peak elevation in a region, or talk of a mountain that has
several peaks.

I wouldn't like using 'mountain' to mean 'hill', but 'peak' is more generic.

I'm also fine with 'hill' if people want to use it. But as I said, the
difference between 'mountain' and 'hill' is a matter of local culture.

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:19 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> sent from a phone
> On 25. Sep 2018, at 02:15, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com> wrote:
> The page for natural=peak lists natural=hill as a tagging error:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=peak
> It should better reference the hill proposal as “see also”. While there is likely discussion to be held about hills, simply calling it an ‘error’ is not productive.
> While this “possible tagging errors” section has some sense in pointing out typical spelling errors and expected low usage synonyms, I find it more often than I’d like, overshooting the mark by discouraging new tagging ideas and dismissing tags with (at least slightly) different semantics.
> Please look at these and remove tags from this section when you feel they are not actually “tagging errors”.
> Cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

More information about the Tagging mailing list