[Tagging] Peak-based mountain range proof of concept

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

In light of the ongoing "how to tag a mountain range" discussion, I created
the following object which maps the Green Mountains in Vermont, USA.  As a
flatlander, I had substantial help from a local Vermonter, who understood
the topography and which peaks should be included.  It is modeled simply as
a relation of all the mountain peaks in the range:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12102399

I offer this as a proof of concept of one possible way to map a mountain
range, hopefully to help further the discussion.  I am not necessarily
advocating for this scheme or the specific tagging that I have on that
object (and I'm not planning to write a proposal around it), but I thought
it would be useful to demonstrate a concrete example that we could all look
at.

The relation contains a bit over 200 peak nodes, which is a completely
manageable size.

Advantages of this approach:
1. Point cloud still yields the approximate location of the range as a whole
2. There is sufficient data to algorithmically determine the location and
size of a label
3. Does not introduce polygons into any editor
4. Eliminates disputes over where the boundary of the "range" lies
5. Whether or not a peak is in a mountain range is reasonably verifiable
(based on local knowledge, mountaineering club definitions, etc.)

Disadvantages:
1. Still need to make decisions about whether peaks are in the range based
on geography.
2. Need to decide whether all peak objects are included or only the most
prominent ones.
3. No definitive way to determine whether a point is "inside" the mountain
range geography (though one might imagine an algorithm based on the point
cloud)
4. More work to map than a rough, fuzzy polygon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201228/35e319af/attachment.htm>