[Tagging] Strange tags

[Dave Swarthout]

Yes, it's always complicated, isn't it? I realize many folks are interested
in climbing all the peaks on certain lists. Good for them. The Adirondack
46ers was the only one familiar to me.

As I said, I have no stake in this. It was mostly curiosity that motivated
me to bring it to the Tagging group.







On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 8:40 AM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 7:51 PM Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, I'll be damned. These hikers, or "hillbaggers", are using these
> tags for their own purposes. Many of them could easily be derived from the
> ele tag. I have no stake in whether they do that or not except to say that
> it encourages others to make up tags for their own regional uses. In New
> York State there is a list of 46 peaks that top 4,000 feet and anyone who
> summits them joins the group called "The 46ers." But nobody maps them with
> 46er=yes/no because this information is immediately obvious from the ele
> tag.
>
> Actually, it's the list of peaks that were thought to be above 4000
> feet (and with requirements for prominence and isolation) at the time
> that the club was founded. Simple elevation is not enough to determine
> this. Because of prominence and isolation requirements, Pyramid Peak
> (4597 ft AMSL) is not on the list; it is considered to be a subsidiary
> summit of Gothics. Similarly, Little Marcy and Schofield Cobble are
> considered subsidiary summits of Mount Marcy, but Gray Peak squeaks in
> with just barely the required prominence. Moreover, it turns out in
> modern surveys that Mount Blake, Cliff Mountain, Nye Mountain and
> Couchsachraga are all less than 4000 feet AMSL, while MacNaughton
> Mountain tops 4000 feet but is not one of the 46. Finally, Slide
> Mountain (4120 feet) and Hunter Mountain (4040 feet) are excluded by
> being outside the Adirondack Park - they are both clearly above 4000
> feet and have tremendous prominence, but they're in an entirely
> different range.
>
> The Catskill 35 (which has Slide and Hunter as its two tallest peaks)
> are another list that's locally significant. It purports to be the "35
> summits above 3500 feet in the Catskills" but once again that's an
> oversimplification. For it, the prominence and isolation rules have
> been fine-tuned over the years to keep the list stable. "The Dink",
> south of Cornell Mountain, "Camel's Hump" west of Thomas Cole
> Mountain, or "Little Slide" north of Slide Mountain all are
> unquestionably named peaks above 3500 feet, but either are not
> prominent enough or are too close to a different peak. The definitions
> have to be tuned very finely, however, to keep Wittenberg from being
> considered a subsidiary summit of Cornell Mountain. Since the club's
> founding, only one peak has been added to the list: its name is
> Southwest Hunter, or Leavitt Peak, or Hill 3750, depending on what
> version of the list you consult. It was nameless until its inclusion
> on the list meant that hikers needed a name for it. (Grace Peak in the
> Adirondacks has a somewhat similar story, and did indeed acquire a
> name from being listed.) The current feeling in the club appears to be
> that the list should now be fixed as it stands. If it turns out, as is
> plausible, that the high point of Dry Brook Ridge or Millbrook Ridge
> tops out above 3500 feet, the sentiment appears to be that they should
> not be added.
>
> The Catskill 35 list also contains four summits (Slide, Blackhead,
> Balsam [Ulster County] and Panther) that have to be climbed twice - at
> least once in winter. The choice of which summits were included in
> that list appears to have been entirely arbitrary, and the club
> founders never offered an explanation.
>
> Given that the lists at this point are arbitrary, there's really no
> way to represent the list membership other than making up some
> entirely arbitrary scheme. If asked to come up with something, I'd
> probably put the 46 summits in a group relation and hang the name
> 'Adirondack 46' off that. I'd do a similar thing for the Catskill 35,
> but then scratch my head about how to identify the Winter Four.
>
> As it is, I use information external to OSM for rendering this area so
> that the list memberships can be shown - they are quite important to
> the local hikers, many of whom are chasing their Adirondack 46'er or
> Catskill 3500 Club badges. Peak-bagging is a serious sport around
> here!
>
> I've not tried to add the information because I eschew controversy. I
> know that on the 'tagging' list there are hard-liners who would even
> challenge adding the peaks' names to the list, on the grounds that the
> names for the most part cannot be observed in the field. (Look at a
> topo map, or ask virtually any local 'what mountain is that big one?'
> while pointing, and you'll get an answer, but for many of these peaks
> I don't think I've ever seen a sign with the name, so I've been told
> that in such a case the name is not verifiable!)
>
> At least Summits-on-the-Air (an Amateur Radio group that competes in
> communicating with operators who bring portable equipment to the
> summits for temporary activations) assigns reference numbers (the
> Adirondack list is at https://summits.sota.org.uk/region/W2/GA)  so I
> could use a 'ref:sota' tag to label its peaks if I desired. The
> Adirondack 46, the Northeast 111, the Catskill 35, etc. just use the
> names, so that's not an option that's available to me.
>
> Since there are communities, in many parts of the world, that are
> interested in the local peak-bagging lists, and many references are
> available to verify what peaks are members of what lists, I'd be
> exceedingly reluctant to say, "no, you may not have that information
> in OSM." I'm content with using external data to drive my own
> rendering, but I surely understand the desire for "one-stop shopping".
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190930/9e4777bd/attachment.html>