[Talk-gb-midanglia] Best practice for tagging minor hills and similar

[David Earl]

On 06/12/2008 15:06, Philip Howarth wrote:
> To identify a mountain is easy - just tag as:  natural=peak, name=Kala 
> Patar.
> 
> This doesn't seem appropriate for minor hills and I have seen one small 
> discussion (focussing on the Cambridgeshire Gogs) on the suggestion to 
> use place=locality with natural=hill.
> It is also clear that the intention of 'peak' is to mark the summit 
> whereas local useage with hill names is often to refer to the whole hill 
> as an area of land. Maybe I am suffering from living in the flatlands 
> too long - should I just get on and label them peek or... ?
> 
> Closely connected (in terms of my attempts to map a rolling hilly area 
> in Northumberland) is how to tag areas that have local names with no 
> real associated feature.  I'm using place=locality for that at the 
> moment which seems to fit the definition "An unpopulated, named place".
> 
> Does anyone have any ideas, views, suggestions...

place=locality is rendered by both the main maps (but not the cycle 
map), and seems appropriate for this. There's not a whole lot of point 
in defining an area for hills as the public domain contour data will 
serve this purpose very well.

Mark Williamson got there before you and has already added Gog Magog 
Hills as a locality (in September).

My feeling is you shouldn't use more than one "primary" tag on things, 
but I know others disagree (to the extent that we have 
place=X;building=town_hall on some nodes, which seems like awkward 
overloading to me).

David