[Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

Anders Torger anders at torger.se
Mon Dec 21 10:26:24 UTC 2020


Thanks, good points and information.

Indeed, the fell tag seems to be a bit misused. I would guess it could 
be because there are things actually named "Fell" there, and then 
inexperienced mappers may use the Fell tag as that seems appropriate. 
Incorrect use can be cleaned up in time though (fell is not used *a lot* 
so it's not like fixing place=locality uses...), and I think it 
shouldn't stop a useful tag. But sure we could perhaps make a new one, 
or a new tag combination if that is better.

I have myself looked at the fell definition here:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dfell

And interestingly enough the "examples" photographs are from areas I'm 
actually currently mapping(!) so I thought if it was meant to be used at 
all, this is the place :-). It also matches up how maps are 
traditionally made here, so very good for the local community. We don't 
call these areas "fell" in our local language, but rather what would be 
translated to "bare mountain" (ie mountain above tree line), but the 
actual name of the tag isn't what matters, it's the definition. And the 
current wiki page clearly points at the use I'm looking for.

Although the bare rock/scree altitude is quite clear and I'll probably 
map it as that in time, I'm afraid that if I map the mid altitude bare 
mountain with "heath" instead of fell, the heath definition will be a 
bit watered out due to the speckled and diffuse character of this 
nature. So I think it would be better with a specific tag that embraces 
this property of the land.

/Anders

On 2020-12-21 10:34, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 21/12/2020 07:39, Anders Torger wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> I'm doing further mapping of Swedish national parks, now in the 
>> mountains, and I have noted that natural=fell (habitat over tree line) 
>> is not rendered.
>> 
>> Looking into why it seems that OSM-Carto implementors want more 
>> specific landcover tags to be used. ...
> 
> This isn't really anything to do with tagging, but I can understand
> why some renderers decide not to render it.
> 
> Usage, at least where am I, is hugely problematic:
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/11nH .
> 
> Usage in the Pennines northwest of Leeds is almost exclusively just a
> bunch of names that have been copied from old out-of-copyright NPE
> maps.  The features may be peaks, or patches of moorland, or something
> else again.  If a renderer was to do something with them, it'd
> probably be as "place=locality".
> 
> Further west examples like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/412325588
> correspond better to the wiki definition.  In that example other
> landuse (woodland, heath) is also mapped.
> 
> There are also some surprising uses in place of other tags - on
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/368051383 it surely means
> "trail_visibility"!
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Andy
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



More information about the Tagging mailing list