[Tagging] natural=fell not rendered, alternatives?

[Anders Torger]

I just discovered a strange(?) thing with the "natural=fell" tag which I 
missed at first: on the wiki page there's two purposes defined of this 
single tag, the first is landcover of bare mountain as discussed, and 
the other purpose is, quote from the wiki:

"In the north of England, and probably in other areas of Norse influence 
such as Iceland, Norway and Sweden, there is a practice of naming the 
sides of hills, fells, rather than peaks. A single hill can have 
different names on different sides. This tag can be used to record such 
names."

It's true that we do have such a practice although more so at lower 
altitudes. I recently added such a name on an alpine mountain as a fell 
cutout with a fixme tag (there is no other tag for slopes I think, 
didn't realize that "fell" is it). However as said we have "fell" in 
that sense in forested areas as well, even more common there.

I guess if "fell without name tag" is defined as landcover, and "fell 
with name tag" is defined as fuzzy area naming a side of a hill it could 
work, but it's the first time I see this type of dual definition. Is it 
normal, or is the wiki page just documenting how this tag have ended up 
being used?

/Anders

On 2020-12-21 18:27, stevea wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2020, at 7:10 AM, Tomas Straupis <tomasstraupis at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> 2020-12-21, pr, 16:52 Anders Torger rašė:
>>> But what to do if the things you want doesn't
>>> really fit into what OSM currently is and strives to be...
>> 
>>  We are ALL OSM community. If somebody tells you that "I am OSM and
>> only A is right" - do not believe them.
>>  YOU define what OSM is and where it is going to by DOING.
>>  The more I look at it, the more it seems that fragmentation is
>> inevitable. Question is how much will remain "common".
> 
> Thank you for saying it like this, Tomas.  Fragmentation happens,
> though it is not the end of OSM when it does.  Private projects, when
> they happen, don't necessarily harm OSM, they prove its strength as a
> solid foundation of data upon which are built bespoke / custom
> solutions.  These even can (and do?) "link up" to form a stronger
> fabric which "rides along with" the solid foundation.  There are
> examples of this in OSM right now.  Truly, a lot of what was said in
> the last few posts are bullseyes on a target:
> 
> • YOU define what OSM is by DOING (a crucially important truth!)
> 
> • While "local renderers" are by definition limited in their scope,
> they need not be limited in their use:  they can be practical/visual
> proofs of "better ways" (to do things), testing grounds for finding
> solutions to more international problems
> 
> • There are already local communities creating local cartographic data
> schemas, this is already being talked about as becoming more-widely
> and better integrated among data consumers (like yourself, Anders —
> that's how this works)
> 
> • Making OSM into what we might use in the future as a "baseline" map
> for a drop-in replacement for government maps (in Sweden, for example)
> will doubtless earn us growing contributions that surpass the
> government maps.  Yes, that's a fair bit of sweat, work and time, but
> it is worth it!  (That's a fantastic dream, well-stated and shared by
> many, Anders!)
> 
> • Agreeing on the goals FIRST (among peers who can, do and will work
> towards them) takes energy, but it is worth it!
> 
> • It is easy to get hooked on this kind of mapping / data /
> collaboration!  It works, it is a lot of fun.  Repeat ad infinitum.