Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

> On Sep 26, 2018, at 6:46 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I don't actually mind 'natural=peak' for any named local maximum > elevation. In so many places, Lumps and bumps are simply not named. But in some places, they are. People who see Mount Fuji every day have no idea all 8 high points on

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

Please comment on the talk page if you have any suggestions about this proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/key:prominence On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 11:40 PM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > The tag, "prominence=*" has been in use for a number

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

I don't actually mind 'natural=peak' for any named local maximum elevation. 'Peak' in one of its senses simply means the high or most important point of anything. You can speak of the peak of a hill, or of the peak elevation in a region, or talk of a mountain that has several peaks. I wouldn't

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

sent from a phone > On 25. Sep 2018, at 02:15, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > The page for natural=peak lists natural=hill as a tagging error: > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=peak It should better reference the hill proposal as “see also”. While there is likely discussion

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

> On Sep 25, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I live in country with long ridges, and almost anything with enough isolation > and a little bit of prominence winds up being a named summit. Yea, long strings of peaks are difficult to deal with. A caldera relation would handle a

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 10:25 PM John Willis wrote: > it would be nice if there was a "caldera relation" to connect them all together, which would allow the rendering of the named, yet overall unimportant =peaks to be reduced. The idea of a relation that would link a peak to its key col and line

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

> On Sep 25, 2018, at 9:51 AM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > I don't think it works call each of those local high points on Mt Fuji's > crater a "hill", if they are all at >3000m elevation with steep slopes > dropping >1000 meters down to the valley or plain below. I think it does -

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

The small sub-summits around the caldera of a tall volcano (eg Mt Fuji) are a great example of why prominence=* is useful. I don't think it works call each of those local high points on Mt Fuji's crater a "hill", if they are all at >3000m elevation with steep slopes dropping >1000 meters down to

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

> On Sep 25, 2018, at 5:08 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: > >> There is an attempt to document what a hill is and how its separated from a >> (natural=)peak by separating them on prominence. TL;DR - you are dealing with a very high volume of named “sub-peaks / prominences /

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

The page for natural=peak lists natural=hill as a tagging error: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=peak But https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dhill says: "Many natural =peak

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

On 24/09/18 20:24, Fredrik wrote: Ref prominence, there is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=hill. There is an attempt to document what a hill is and how its separated from a (natural=)peak by separating them on prominence. Are you trying to create a new term there, are you

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

Ref prominence, there is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=hill. There is an attempt to document what a hill is and how its separated from a (natural=)peak by separating them on prominence. Please add a better description if you can. -- FredrikLindseth

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Topographic Prominence

The tag, "prominence=*" has been in use for a number of years, but the proposal was abandoned before a vote back in 2009. I have revived the proposal and now request your comments and suggestions before bringing it to a vote: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/key:prominence