[Tagging] How to put a name tag on an area with more than one type?

[Anders Torger]

Yeah, you may be right, but I see it like this: in cases where "complex" 
naming is a reality, complex schemes are unavoidable, if we want to 
support it at all. It's not like one would use the most complex method 
in every case, just where it's needed. To use an old saying, Einstein I 
think: "make it as simple as possible, but no simpler". Now we are at 
some places making it so simple that it becomes incorrect.

I haven't really figured out if the OSM community as a whole actually 
want to support these types of things though. It's quite meaningless to 
fight for a tiny feature in this space if the whole concept of naming 
nature is frowned upon. That there are so many features still missing or 
poorly defined in this space after so many years does indicate that it 
has least hasn't been a priority. It's called open*street*map after 
all...

My sense is that OSM community do want naming in nature as well, but 
only if it can be made very simple. Unfortunately that is not always 
compatible with reality, and here we are...

/Anders

On 2020-12-14 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

> Relations are quite obnoxious in regular editing and also
> during actually using the data.
> 
> Dec 14, 2020, 08:07 by anders at torger.se:
> 
> Why is the relation problematic (honest question)?
> 
> I was starting to think that some sort of naming relation could be the 
> answer, ie you put both peaks in a relation with for example type=name; 
> natural=mountain; name=Kebnekaise.
> 
> In addition one should write clearly that peak serves dual purpose both 
> as naming peaks and mountains. Today on the wiki the peak is clearly 
> defined as only the summit, but it's often used as naming mountains 
> where the peak is nameless.
> 
> What we also could have is fuzzy naming areas, which we would need in 
> some way or another at some point anyway, so you would have an area 
> covering the mountain with name=Kebnekaise. I would have no problem 
> with that, but it seems to that it must be in a separate database as it 
> just too controversial to be in the main database.
> 
> /Anders
> 
> On 2020-12-13 21:12, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> 
> Dec 13, 2020, 19:58 by anders at torger.se:
> 
> Do you have a suggestion of how to map Sweden's highest mountain, 
> Kebnekaise?
> 
> The mountain is called Kebnekaise, it has two peaks, one is called 
> "Sydtoppen" ("the south peak"), the other "Nordtoppen" ("the north 
> peak").
> I admit that I have no good idea, if I would run into such case and 
> failed to find a better idea
> (hopefully one will come) I would invent a new way to tag that.
> 
> natural=mountain? Main problem is where to put it - node at arbitrary 
> position between peaks?
> Node at location of highest peak? Area? Relation? All of that is sadly 
> problematic.
> 
> (The mountain_range tag is a great tag, but I note that its status is 
> just "in use", it's not an approved tag :-O.)
> It is perfectly fine to use tags that never went through tagging 
> proposal, though
> I am not going to endorse this one. Tagging mountain ranges seems to 
> poorly fit OSM
> with multiple different opinions where mountain range starts/ends and 
> inability to
> verify it by survey.
> 
> All tags were in some stage rarely used before becoming heavily used,
> only some cases went through a proposal process.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201214/12fbccdc/attachment.htm>