Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-10-01 Thread Paul Allen 
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 15:46, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>
> The issue of whether enough people know a name to make it 'truly' a
> name for OSM is, and will always be, a judgment call at the low end. I
> doubt we'll ever find a bright line. There's a fuzzy line somewhere
> between the Pauls and the Catskill 3500s.
>

Actually, there's a very simple test.  Is somebody motivated enough to add
the list?
It's the same test used to add anything to OSM.  In some cases, a lot of
mappers
will agree that the addition is sensible, in some cases most mappers will
think the addition is stupid, but the only thing that determines if it
appears
or not is if a single person thinks it justified.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-10-01 Thread Kevin Kenny 
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:16 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
> The point is that while Pauls may never be a thing (unless I make a list of 
> all the peaks
> I'd never climb, which is all of them) and Kevins may be unlikely to be a 
> thing, there is
> nothing to prevent other lists being created and becoming popular.  There's no
> real limit.

The issue of whether enough people know a name to make it 'truly' a
name for OSM is, and will always be, a judgment call at the low end. I
doubt we'll ever find a bright line. There's a fuzzy line somewhere
between the Pauls and the Catskill 3500s.
-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-10-01 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
Am Di., 1. Okt. 2019 um 16:16 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

>
>
> Whether we have a relation `type=group name=Munros` or whether we have
>> a tag: `hillbagging:munro=yes` (and yes, I agree that if we go the
>> latter route, a namespace is a good idea) is something to which I'm
>> largely indifferent. I'm weakly inclined to the latter (despite what I
>> said in an earlier post) only because of the technological problems of
>> maintaining a relation that spans a broad geographic area.
>
>
> Ah, I'd forgotten about the problem with editors.  Unless I've missed
> something,
> it's incredibly difficult to add geographically-dispersed members of a
> relation
> using iD.  So namespacing gets my vote.
>


I'm also in favor of tags, because with relations you would have to find
the relation to add a new member, which is not very practical for dispersed
objects in any editor. More specific keys (call it namespacing) are better
for context and conflict prevention, +1

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-10-01 Thread Paul Allen 
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 14:45, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 02:41, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> >> Given that the lists at this point are arbitrary,
>
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 7:39 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
> > That was the conclusion I came to after a more detailed reading of the
> wikipedia
> > page.  Until a couple of days ago I'd only heard of Munros and thought
> that was
> > a semi-official designation.  I now realize these things are arbitrary
> lists and
> > that you or I could come up with a list of Kevins or Pauls.  Even if no
> more
> > lists are ever created, there are too many to sensibly add kevins=yes and
> > pauls=yes to various peaks scattered around the world.
>
> Later, in the same post:
> > If we were to restrict OSM to only those items of interest to me, it
> would be a very
> > sparse map.  I, too, am reluctant to discriminate against hillbaggers
> whilst
> > catering to cyclists and walkers.
>
> Uhm, so which is it?  In one paragraph, you argue that we mustn't do
> it, and in another you argue that we should.
>

I didn't say we mustn't do it, I said that the way we're currently doing it
isn't sensible.
Tagging objects as Pauls, Kevins and every other list that may be created is
silly and unsustainable (the same peak could appear in dozens of lists).
Use a relation, or namespacing, or link to a hillbagging reverse-lookup
service
(if one exists).

I don't think there's a good reason to object to adding these lists to OSM,
but I'm not happy with how it's been done so far.  Does that clarify things
for
you?

It's true that you or I could have come up with kevin=yes or paul=yes.
> But where's the verifiability for a Paui or Kevin list?
>

I'll mail you a copy of my list.  You can verify that it's the same list
that I
say it is.  Happy?  You ought to be, because it is exactly as verifiable,
and verifiable
in exactly the same way, as all the other lists.  The only difference is in
the number
of people who make use of it and how well publicized it is.

The point is that while Pauls may never be a thing (unless I make a list of
all the peaks
I'd never climb, which is all of them) and Kevins may be unlikely to be a
thing, there is
nothing to prevent other lists being created and becoming popular.  There's
no
real limit.

Whether we have a relation `type=group name=Munros` or whether we have
> a tag: `hillbagging:munro=yes` (and yes, I agree that if we go the
> latter route, a namespace is a good idea) is something to which I'm
> largely indifferent. I'm weakly inclined to the latter (despite what I
> said in an earlier post) only because of the technological problems of
> maintaining a relation that spans a broad geographic area.


Ah, I'd forgotten about the problem with editors.  Unless I've missed
something,
it's incredibly difficult to add geographically-dispersed members of a
relation
using iD.  So namespacing gets my vote.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-10-01 Thread Kevin Kenny 
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 02:41, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>> Given that the lists at this point are arbitrary,

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 7:39 AM Paul Allen  wrote:
> That was the conclusion I came to after a more detailed reading of the 
> wikipedia
> page.  Until a couple of days ago I'd only heard of Munros and thought that 
> was
> a semi-official designation.  I now realize these things are arbitrary lists 
> and
> that you or I could come up with a list of Kevins or Pauls.  Even if no more
> lists are ever created, there are too many to sensibly add kevins=yes and
> pauls=yes to various peaks scattered around the world.

Later, in the same post:
> If we were to restrict OSM to only those items of interest to me, it would be 
> a very
> sparse map.  I, too, am reluctant to discriminate against hillbaggers whilst
> catering to cyclists and walkers.

Uhm, so which is it?  In one paragraph, you argue that we mustn't do
it, and in another you argue that we should.

It's true that you or I could have come up with kevin=yes or paul=yes.
But where's the verifiability for a Paui or Kevin list?

To continue the New York examples, the Adirondack 46 are well enough
known that over seven thousand people have put in with the club for
their 46er badge. The Catskill 3500 Club also well known, with some
two thousand people (and a few dogs) having completed the requirements
and applied for membership (dogs can be associate members if someone
pays their fare, but can't vote at club meetings. They needn't have
signed the logs if a member vouches for them.). I don't get to the
West often enough to have even started on a list like the Colorado
Fourteeners, but I know they're there. I've never been to the UK, but
I've surely heard of the Munros and know that scramblers pursue them
with passionate intensity. All of these lists have multiple guidebooks
and maps in print, and organizations with custody of the lists that
vet award applicants. (It's mostly on an honour system, but I know
that for the Catskill 3500's the club makes spot checks against the
log books cached at a dozen or so of the trackless peaks, and assumes
that if you can climb those, you've no reason to lie about the rest.)

At the time that the Marshall brothers identified the Adirondack 46
and resolved to climb them all with their intrepid guide Herbert
Clark, or Bill and Kay Spangenberger got the idea to climb the
Catskills' highest summits, their lists were no more significant or
verifiable than a list of 'Pauls' or 'Kevins'. But after Rev. Ryder
and his Sunday School class got the idea of following in the
Marshalls' footsteps, and the officers of the Mid-Hudson Chapter of
the ADK got the idea of founding a Catskill 3500 Club, the ideas began
to gain traction, and now they have a substantial following. As with
most things OSM, it's a judgment call what deserves inclusion, but
these two lists have almost certainly passed that point.

Whether we have a relation `type=group name=Munros` or whether we have
a tag: `hillbagging:munro=yes` (and yes, I agree that if we go the
latter route, a namespace is a good idea) is something to which I'm
largely indifferent. I'm weakly inclined to the latter (despite what I
said in an earlier post) only because of the technological problems of
maintaining a relation that spans a broad geographic area. A list like
the Northeast 111 (summits above 4000 feet and a certain prominence in
the Northeastern US) has an awkwardly large number of members and an
awkwardly large geographic range (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and
New York - the other Northeastern states have no peaks that meet the
criteria).

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-10-01 Thread Craig Wallace 

On 2019-09-30 12:38, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 02:41, Kevin Kenny > wrote:



Given that the lists at this point are arbitrary,


That was the conclusion I came to after a more detailed reading of the 
wikipedia
page.  Until a couple of days ago I'd only heard of Munros and thought 
that was
a semi-official designation.  I now realize these things are arbitrary 
lists and
that you or I could come up with a list of Kevins or Pauls.  Even if 
no more

lists are ever created, there are too many to sensibly add kevins=yes and
pauls=yes to various peaks scattered around the world.


Yes, Munros are a somewhat arbitrary list. There is no specific 
definition of prominence, and what counts as a separate mountain. There 
is also a list of "Munro Tops" for the minor summits.


But the official Munro list is now maintained by the Scottish 
Mountaineering Club. And the list has been around for over 120 years, 
with hundreds of books, websites and apps published about them, and even 
a TV show. It is rather different to you just making up a list of summits.


Though maybe there are issues with some of the more obscure hill lists, 
which ones are worth adding to OSM. And possible copyright issues. If 
someone makes up a list to try and sell a book, is that list copyright, 
and can it be added to OSM?


Craig

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-30 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick 
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 21:26, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
> For local place names they quizzed local people "What do
> you call that?" and that's the name they used on their maps.
>

Quite a number of Australian place- & natural feature (mountain, river etc)
names use Aboriginal words, but, there is no such thing as an Aboriginal
alphabet, as none of the languages (approx 300 - 350) were ever written
down, they were only verbal.

Spelling of these names is now being based on somebody translating what
they think is the correct pronunciation of the appropriate Aboriginal word
into English characters (&, in some cases, using a word that wasn't from
the local language)

Sometimes spelled incorrectly.
>

I have some official maps of our area dating only from the 1960's that show
suburb names spelt differently to what they are today! Which is correct? My
Mum lived in this area most of her life & always pronounced one suburb with
a "p" in the middle of the name, despite no p being in the spelling now,
but it is shown with one on those 1960's maps. Officially, that suburb was
only named (without the p) in 1982, but she knew it since the 1920's.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-30 Thread Mateusz Konieczny 
30 Sep 2019, 09:33 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:

> Am Mo., 30. Sept. 2019 um 03:41 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny <> 
> kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com > >:
>
>>
>>
>>  know that on the 'tagging' list there are hard-liners who would even
>>  challenge adding the peaks' names to the list, on the grounds that the
>>  names for the most part cannot be observed in the field. (Look at a
>>  topo map, or ask virtually any local 'what mountain is that big one?'
>>  while pointing, and you'll get an answer, but for many of these peaks
>>  I don't think I've ever seen a sign with the name, so I've been told
>>  that in such a case the name is not verifiable!)
>>
>
>
> IMHO this would represent just a small minority of people thinking so. 
> Generally verifiability would be satisfied if you could go in the area and 
> ask the people, there is no requirement for a sign.
>
Allowing solely signed names is ridiculously extreme, it sounds like a 
misunderstanding.

Maybe it was intended as "locally signed name is more important than desires of
an individual/organization/government".

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-30 Thread Paul Allen 
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 02:41, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>
> Given that the lists at this point are arbitrary,


That was the conclusion I came to after a more detailed reading of the
wikipedia
page.  Until a couple of days ago I'd only heard of Munros and thought that
was
a semi-official designation.  I now realize these things are arbitrary
lists and
that you or I could come up with a list of Kevins or Pauls.  Even if no more
lists are ever created, there are too many to sensibly add kevins=yes and
pauls=yes to various peaks scattered around the world.


> If asked to come up with something, I'd probably put the 46 summits in a
> grou
>
relation and hang the name  'Adirondack 46' off that.


Just to prevent tag proliferation (and possible future collisions with other
types of object) they ought to be namespaced rather than bare tags.
hillbagging:munro=yes, etc.  But I think relations are probably cleaner
(assuming they don't grow large enough to cause problems for the db).

As it is, I use information external to OSM for rendering this area so
> that the list memberships can be shown - they are quite important to
> the local hikers, many of whom are chasing their Adirondack 46'er or
> Catskill 3500 Club badges. Peak-bagging is a serious sport around
> here!
>

I figure it's as important to hillbaggers as cycling routes are to cyclists
and walking routes are to ramblers.

Since there are communities, in many parts of the world, that are
> interested in the local peak-bagging lists, and many references are
> available to verify what peaks are members of what lists, I'd be
> exceedingly reluctant to say, "no, you may not have that information
> in OSM."
>

If we were to restrict OSM to only those items of interest to me, it would
be a very
sparse map.  I, too, am reluctant to discriminate against hillbaggers whilst
catering to cyclists and walkers.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
Am Mo., 30. Sept. 2019 um 13:26 Uhr schrieb Paul Allen :

> A couple of weeks ago, while following links in the hope of getting
> information
> about something, I stumbled across a page about the Ordnance Survey in the
> UK
> and its early history.  For local place names they quizzed local people
> "What do
> you call that?" and that's the name they used on their maps.  Sometimes
> spelled
> incorrectly.  So the official names (in the UK, at least) were originally
> derived by
> asking the locals.
>
> I can't remember where I saw it, or even what I was looking for that led
> me there.
> I just tried a quick google search and got lots of hits that weren't it.
> So you'll
> have to trust my lousy memory about it.
>


That's generally how names come onto maps (before they get copied from one
edition to the next). And it is why an open database is not always
sufficient for verifiability, the name in the db could be a name, but it
could also be an error or an old name (a name that was used but is not
anymore).

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-30 Thread Paul Allen 
On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 12:00, Tomas Straupis 
wrote:

> 2019-09-30, pr, 10:35 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė:
>


> > IMHO this would represent just a small minority of people thinking so.
> > Generally verifiability would be satisfied if you could go in the area
> > and ask the people, there is no requirement for a sign.
>
>   If there is an official open freely accessible dataset, you (and
> anybody else) can use it to verify.
>

A couple of weeks ago, while following links in the hope of getting
information
about something, I stumbled across a page about the Ordnance Survey in the
UK
and its early history.  For local place names they quizzed local people
"What do
you call that?" and that's the name they used on their maps.  Sometimes
spelled
incorrectly.  So the official names (in the UK, at least) were originally
derived by
asking the locals.

I can't remember where I saw it, or even what I was looking for that led me
there.
I just tried a quick google search and got lots of hits that weren't it.
So you'll
have to trust my lousy memory about it.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-30 Thread Tomas Straupis 
2019-09-30, pr, 10:35 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė:
>> topo map, or ask virtually any local 'what mountain is that big one?'
>> while pointing, and you'll get an answer, but for many of these peaks
>> I don't think I've ever seen a sign with the name, so I've been told
>> that in such a case the name is not verifiable!)
>
> IMHO this would represent just a small minority of people thinking so.
> Generally verifiability would be satisfied if you could go in the area
> and ask the people, there is no requirement for a sign.

  If there is an official open freely accessible dataset, you (and
anybody else) can use it to verify.

-- 
Tomas

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-30 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 
Am Mo., 30. Sept. 2019 um 03:41 Uhr schrieb Kevin Kenny <
kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>:

> I've not tried to add the information because I eschew controversy.



that's fine, I probably wouldn't have either



> I
> know that on the 'tagging' list there are hard-liners who would even
> challenge adding the peaks' names to the list, on the grounds that the
> names for the most part cannot be observed in the field. (Look at a
> topo map, or ask virtually any local 'what mountain is that big one?'
> while pointing, and you'll get an answer, but for many of these peaks
> I don't think I've ever seen a sign with the name, so I've been told
> that in such a case the name is not verifiable!)



IMHO this would represent just a small minority of people thinking so.
Generally verifiability would be satisfied if you could go in the area and
ask the people, there is no requirement for a sign.

Cheers
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-29 Thread Dave Swarthout 
Yes, it's always complicated, isn't it? I realize many folks are interested
in climbing all the peaks on certain lists. Good for them. The Adirondack
46ers was the only one familiar to me.

As I said, I have no stake in this. It was mostly curiosity that motivated
me to bring it to the Tagging group.







On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 8:40 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 7:51 PM Dave Swarthout 
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, I'll be damned. These hikers, or "hillbaggers", are using these
> tags for their own purposes. Many of them could easily be derived from the
> ele tag. I have no stake in whether they do that or not except to say that
> it encourages others to make up tags for their own regional uses. In New
> York State there is a list of 46 peaks that top 4,000 feet and anyone who
> summits them joins the group called "The 46ers." But nobody maps them with
> 46er=yes/no because this information is immediately obvious from the ele
> tag.
>
> Actually, it's the list of peaks that were thought to be above 4000
> feet (and with requirements for prominence and isolation) at the time
> that the club was founded. Simple elevation is not enough to determine
> this. Because of prominence and isolation requirements, Pyramid Peak
> (4597 ft AMSL) is not on the list; it is considered to be a subsidiary
> summit of Gothics. Similarly, Little Marcy and Schofield Cobble are
> considered subsidiary summits of Mount Marcy, but Gray Peak squeaks in
> with just barely the required prominence. Moreover, it turns out in
> modern surveys that Mount Blake, Cliff Mountain, Nye Mountain and
> Couchsachraga are all less than 4000 feet AMSL, while MacNaughton
> Mountain tops 4000 feet but is not one of the 46. Finally, Slide
> Mountain (4120 feet) and Hunter Mountain (4040 feet) are excluded by
> being outside the Adirondack Park - they are both clearly above 4000
> feet and have tremendous prominence, but they're in an entirely
> different range.
>
> The Catskill 35 (which has Slide and Hunter as its two tallest peaks)
> are another list that's locally significant. It purports to be the "35
> summits above 3500 feet in the Catskills" but once again that's an
> oversimplification. For it, the prominence and isolation rules have
> been fine-tuned over the years to keep the list stable. "The Dink",
> south of Cornell Mountain, "Camel's Hump" west of Thomas Cole
> Mountain, or "Little Slide" north of Slide Mountain all are
> unquestionably named peaks above 3500 feet, but either are not
> prominent enough or are too close to a different peak. The definitions
> have to be tuned very finely, however, to keep Wittenberg from being
> considered a subsidiary summit of Cornell Mountain. Since the club's
> founding, only one peak has been added to the list: its name is
> Southwest Hunter, or Leavitt Peak, or Hill 3750, depending on what
> version of the list you consult. It was nameless until its inclusion
> on the list meant that hikers needed a name for it. (Grace Peak in the
> Adirondacks has a somewhat similar story, and did indeed acquire a
> name from being listed.) The current feeling in the club appears to be
> that the list should now be fixed as it stands. If it turns out, as is
> plausible, that the high point of Dry Brook Ridge or Millbrook Ridge
> tops out above 3500 feet, the sentiment appears to be that they should
> not be added.
>
> The Catskill 35 list also contains four summits (Slide, Blackhead,
> Balsam [Ulster County] and Panther) that have to be climbed twice - at
> least once in winter. The choice of which summits were included in
> that list appears to have been entirely arbitrary, and the club
> founders never offered an explanation.
>
> Given that the lists at this point are arbitrary, there's really no
> way to represent the list membership other than making up some
> entirely arbitrary scheme. If asked to come up with something, I'd
> probably put the 46 summits in a group relation and hang the name
> 'Adirondack 46' off that. I'd do a similar thing for the Catskill 35,
> but then scratch my head about how to identify the Winter Four.
>
> As it is, I use information external to OSM for rendering this area so
> that the list memberships can be shown - they are quite important to
> the local hikers, many of whom are chasing their Adirondack 46'er or
> Catskill 3500 Club badges. Peak-bagging is a serious sport around
> here!
>
> I've not tried to add the information because I eschew controversy. I
> know that on the 'tagging' list there are hard-liners who would even
> challenge adding the peaks' names to the list, on the grounds that the
> names for the most part cannot be observed in the field. (Look at a
> topo map, or ask virtually any local 'what mountain is that big one?'
> while pointing, and you'll get an answer, but for many of these peaks
> I don't think I've ever seen a sign with the name, so I've been told
> that in such a case the name is not verifiable!)
>
> At least Summits-on-the-Air (an

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-29 Thread Kevin Kenny 
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 7:51 PM Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> Well, I'll be damned. These hikers, or "hillbaggers", are using these tags 
> for their own purposes. Many of them could easily be derived from the ele 
> tag. I have no stake in whether they do that or not except to say that it 
> encourages others to make up tags for their own regional uses. In New York 
> State there is a list of 46 peaks that top 4,000 feet and anyone who summits 
> them joins the group called "The 46ers." But nobody maps them with 
> 46er=yes/no because this information is immediately obvious from the ele tag.

Actually, it's the list of peaks that were thought to be above 4000
feet (and with requirements for prominence and isolation) at the time
that the club was founded. Simple elevation is not enough to determine
this. Because of prominence and isolation requirements, Pyramid Peak
(4597 ft AMSL) is not on the list; it is considered to be a subsidiary
summit of Gothics. Similarly, Little Marcy and Schofield Cobble are
considered subsidiary summits of Mount Marcy, but Gray Peak squeaks in
with just barely the required prominence. Moreover, it turns out in
modern surveys that Mount Blake, Cliff Mountain, Nye Mountain and
Couchsachraga are all less than 4000 feet AMSL, while MacNaughton
Mountain tops 4000 feet but is not one of the 46. Finally, Slide
Mountain (4120 feet) and Hunter Mountain (4040 feet) are excluded by
being outside the Adirondack Park - they are both clearly above 4000
feet and have tremendous prominence, but they're in an entirely
different range.

The Catskill 35 (which has Slide and Hunter as its two tallest peaks)
are another list that's locally significant. It purports to be the "35
summits above 3500 feet in the Catskills" but once again that's an
oversimplification. For it, the prominence and isolation rules have
been fine-tuned over the years to keep the list stable. "The Dink",
south of Cornell Mountain, "Camel's Hump" west of Thomas Cole
Mountain, or "Little Slide" north of Slide Mountain all are
unquestionably named peaks above 3500 feet, but either are not
prominent enough or are too close to a different peak. The definitions
have to be tuned very finely, however, to keep Wittenberg from being
considered a subsidiary summit of Cornell Mountain. Since the club's
founding, only one peak has been added to the list: its name is
Southwest Hunter, or Leavitt Peak, or Hill 3750, depending on what
version of the list you consult. It was nameless until its inclusion
on the list meant that hikers needed a name for it. (Grace Peak in the
Adirondacks has a somewhat similar story, and did indeed acquire a
name from being listed.) The current feeling in the club appears to be
that the list should now be fixed as it stands. If it turns out, as is
plausible, that the high point of Dry Brook Ridge or Millbrook Ridge
tops out above 3500 feet, the sentiment appears to be that they should
not be added.

The Catskill 35 list also contains four summits (Slide, Blackhead,
Balsam [Ulster County] and Panther) that have to be climbed twice - at
least once in winter. The choice of which summits were included in
that list appears to have been entirely arbitrary, and the club
founders never offered an explanation.

Given that the lists at this point are arbitrary, there's really no
way to represent the list membership other than making up some
entirely arbitrary scheme. If asked to come up with something, I'd
probably put the 46 summits in a group relation and hang the name
'Adirondack 46' off that. I'd do a similar thing for the Catskill 35,
but then scratch my head about how to identify the Winter Four.

As it is, I use information external to OSM for rendering this area so
that the list memberships can be shown - they are quite important to
the local hikers, many of whom are chasing their Adirondack 46'er or
Catskill 3500 Club badges. Peak-bagging is a serious sport around
here!

I've not tried to add the information because I eschew controversy. I
know that on the 'tagging' list there are hard-liners who would even
challenge adding the peaks' names to the list, on the grounds that the
names for the most part cannot be observed in the field. (Look at a
topo map, or ask virtually any local 'what mountain is that big one?'
while pointing, and you'll get an answer, but for many of these peaks
I don't think I've ever seen a sign with the name, so I've been told
that in such a case the name is not verifiable!)

At least Summits-on-the-Air (an Amateur Radio group that competes in
communicating with operators who bring portable equipment to the
summits for temporary activations) assigns reference numbers (the
Adirondack list is at https://summits.sota.org.uk/region/W2/GA)  so I
could use a 'ref:sota' tag to label its peaks if I desired. The
Adirondack 46, the Northeast 111, the Catskill 35, etc. just use the
names, so that's not an option that's available to me.

Since there are communities, in many parts of the world, that are

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-29 Thread Dave Swarthout 
Well, I'll be damned. These hikers, or "hillbaggers", are using these tags
for their own purposes. Many of them could easily be derived from the ele
tag. I have no stake in whether they do that or not except to say that it
encourages others to make up tags for their own regional uses. In New York
State there is a list of 46 peaks that top 4,000 feet and anyone who
summits them joins the group called "The 46ers." But nobody maps them with
46er=yes/no because this information is immediately obvious from the ele
tag.

In Thailand, there are local expat mappers who "name" a track or path in
rural regions "Single-track" or "Double track" thus indicating in their own
way whether it's suitable for motorcycle use. I try to discourage such
mapping, preferring to address it some other more uniform and acceptable
manner. This usage amounts to the same thing in IMO. I mean, the list in
the Wikipedia article is a long one. Do we really want all this extra, what
I would term, clutter? I'm not suggesting removing those tags but was just
curious about them.

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 2:39 AM Valor Naram  wrote:

> But as datauser I won't use that data. We need to find a way to make the
> tags more useful in global scope. That can be done by translating to widely
> supported tags etc.
>
> ~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram
>
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Strange tags
> From: ael
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> CC:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 07:24:16PM +0200, Jan Michel wrote:
> > On 29.09.19 17:07, Paul Allen wrote:
> > >
> > > Really?
> > >
> > > There are people who are VERY interested in these things.  People who
> > > want to know where
> > > Munros, Donalds, Grahams, Marilyns, TuMPs, etc. are.
> >
> > Well... There is no documentation of these tags in the OSM wiki.
>
> While that is certainly desirable, it is not necessary, especially where
> the terms are well known - at least in the relevant region.
>
> >
> > These seem to be very local terms that are not used outside of Scotland
> > (British Isles?). In general we oppose such local terms as keys because
> they
> > won't be of any use outside a small area.
>
> Who are "we" who oppose such terms?
>
> OSM is trying to be the best map possible, and the map should be useful
> in small areas (like the UK) as well as more globally.
>
> Even if one local mapper with special local knowledge tags something
> only understood in a very small area, it is still improving the map.
>
> ael
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-29 Thread Warin 

On 30/09/19 03:24, Jan Michel wrote:


Well... There is no documentation of these tags in the OSM wiki.

ael mentioned that these are well-known terms. I tried several 
translators and dictionaries but didn't find anything.

A Google search only finds the wiki "List of mountains and hills
on the British islands", but not much more related information.

These seem to be very local terms that are not used outside of 
Scotland (British Isles?). In general we oppose such local terms as 
keys because they won't be of any use outside a small area.


The terms are well known to a small collection of people - 'peak baggers'.


Looking at the tag history, most of these were added in a few larger 
edits in 2014 and 2015.


What information do these terms contain exactly? What I understand 
from the Wiki page, the names are determined by three properties: The 
location (to be found from boundary relations), the height (tagged as 
'ele') and the prominence (tagged as 'prominence').


prominence is an inactive proposal with over 7,000 uses. Possibly the 
key prominence should be documented.




My very personal conclusion / opinion: These tags are undiscussed, 
undocumented, not well-understood outside a small area and useless 
because they can be derived from a few documented, verifiable tags.


There are similar tags in other parts of the world - e.g. the Ables of 
Tasmania. If these things can be determined from present, relevant OSM 
tag then that would be a good way froward. For example the Ables are a 
simple elevation requirement.





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-29 Thread Valor Naram 
But as datauser I won't use that data. We need to find a way to make the tags more useful in global scope. That can be done by translating to widely supported tags etc.~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Strange tagsFrom: ael To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 07:24:16PM +0200, Jan Michel wrote:> On 29.09.19 17:07, Paul Allen wrote:> > > > Really?> > > > There are people who are VERY interested in these things.  People who> > want to know where> > Munros, Donalds, Grahams, Marilyns, TuMPs, etc. are.> > Well... There is no documentation of these tags in the OSM wiki.While that is certainly desirable, it is not necessary, especially wherethe terms are well known - at least in the relevant region.> > These seem to be very local terms that are not used outside of Scotland> (British Isles?). In general we oppose such local terms as keys because they> won't be of any use outside a small area.Who are "we" who oppose such terms? OSM is trying to be the best map possible, and the map should be usefulin small areas (like the UK) as well as more globally.Even if one local mapper with special local knowledge tags somethingonly understood in a very small area, it is still improving the map.ael___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-29 Thread ael 
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 07:24:16PM +0200, Jan Michel wrote:
> On 29.09.19 17:07, Paul Allen wrote:
> > 
> > Really?
> > 
> > There are people who are VERY interested in these things.  People who
> > want to know where
> > Munros, Donalds, Grahams, Marilyns, TuMPs, etc. are.
> 
> Well... There is no documentation of these tags in the OSM wiki.

While that is certainly desirable, it is not necessary, especially where
the terms are well known - at least in the relevant region.

> 
> These seem to be very local terms that are not used outside of Scotland
> (British Isles?). In general we oppose such local terms as keys because they
> won't be of any use outside a small area.

Who are "we" who oppose such terms? 

OSM is trying to be the best map possible, and the map should be useful
in small areas (like the UK) as well as more globally.

Even if one local mapper with special local knowledge tags something
only understood in a very small area, it is still improving the map.

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-29 Thread Paul Allen 
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 18:25, Jan Michel  wrote:

> On 29.09.19 17:07, Paul Allen wrote:
>


> > There are people who are VERY interested in these things.  People who
> > want to know where Munros, Donalds, Grahams, Marilyns, TuMPs, etc. are.
>
> Well... There is no documentation of these tags in the OSM wiki.
>

True.  Perhaps that means they should be documented as opposed to being
deleted upon sight.  Or perhaps something else should be done about them.

ael mentioned that these are well-known terms. I tried several
> translators and dictionaries but didn't find anything.
> A Google search only finds the wiki "List of mountains and hills
> on the British islands", but not much more related information.
>

When I tried it I got a lot of hits, but the wikipedia article seemed the
obvious
one to mention here, as it's fairly comprehensive.  I learned far more
about the
subject than I ever wanted to know from it.

These seem to be very local terms that are not used outside of Scotland
> (British Isles?).


British Isles.  With regional variations in where such terms are commonly
used.  Only
Scotland has Munros but, in the rest of the British Isles, peaks matching
the criteria of
a Munro are called Furths.

In general we oppose such local terms as keys because
> they won't be of any use outside a small area.
>

There are equivalents outside the British Isles, such as the
Eight-thousanders
(peaks over 8,000 m).

Looking at the tag history, most of these were added in a few larger
> edits in 2014 and 2015.
>

Possibly by a small number of users who were also hillbaggers.  Doesn't
really
affect whether they should be documented or deleted.  At some point we'll
have
mapped all the rivers and streams in the world, and years will go by with
nobody
mapping a river or stream - would that be grounds for deleting rivers and
streams?

What information do these terms contain exactly? What I understand from
> the Wiki page, the names are determined by three properties: The
> location (to be found from boundary relations), the height (tagged as
> 'ele') and the prominence (tagged as 'prominence').
>

If I'm reading it correctly, the location is the position of the peak.
Position, elevation
and prominence can be determined from ele=* and prominence=*, but those are
not always mapped.  The other factor, which you didn't mention, is
isolation.  However,
there's no quantitative metric of isolation, so that hits a verifiability
problem.  The nature
of the peak CAN be determined from existing tags, but only if those tags
are actually used
(and only for the types where isolation isn't a factor).   There's not much
use of
prominence=* as yet.

My very personal conclusion / opinion: These tags are undiscussed,
>

Yep.  But there are a lot of de facto tags that are undiscussed.  Sadly.

undocumented,


Yep.  But that is fixable.  If we choose to.  Even if the documentation
says "Don't use
these tags" :).


> not well-understood outside a small area


Perhaps more of a problem.  Although that could only be a problem because
of the
way they've been tagged, as opposed to the information in the tags.  See on.

and useless because they can be derived from a few documented, verifiable
> tags.
>

Only where those tags are present.  There are many peaks without an
elevation or prominence.
There are many peaks with an elevation but no prominence.

However, because I've had to do more digging to answer you, my thinking on
this has changed
a little.  These aren't really describing physical characteristics so much
as the appearance of
a particular peak on a list of peaks matched by some characteristics (not
all of which are
necessarily physical).  E.g., the Wainwrights are the 214 fells in the
English Lake District that
have a chapter in one of Alfred Wainwright's Pictorial Guides to the
Lakeland Fells.  As such,
I think these would be better handled by relations (assuming it wouldn't be
a database killer), if
they're handled at all.  They're just lists, in the same way that a cycling
route is a list of ways that
somebody decided made up a cycling route: not an inherent physical property
but an aggregation.
Except, of course, cycling routes often have signs.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-29 Thread Jan Michel 

On 29.09.19 17:07, Paul Allen wrote:
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 15:52, Valor Naram via Tagging 
> wrote:


Be sure that almost no data user will evaluate these tags


Really?

There are people who are VERY interested in these things.  People who 
want to know where

Munros, Donalds, Grahams, Marilyns, TuMPs, etc. are.


Well... There is no documentation of these tags in the OSM wiki.

ael mentioned that these are well-known terms. I tried several 
translators and dictionaries but didn't find anything.

A Google search only finds the wiki "List of mountains and hills
on the British islands", but not much more related information.

These seem to be very local terms that are not used outside of Scotland 
(British Isles?). In general we oppose such local terms as keys because 
they won't be of any use outside a small area.


Looking at the tag history, most of these were added in a few larger 
edits in 2014 and 2015.


What information do these terms contain exactly? What I understand from 
the Wiki page, the names are determined by three properties: The 
location (to be found from boundary relations), the height (tagged as 
'ele') and the prominence (tagged as 'prominence').


My very personal conclusion / opinion: These tags are undiscussed, 
undocumented, not well-understood outside a small area and useless 
because they can be derived from a few documented, verifiable tags.





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-29 Thread yo paseopor 
With maps like https://osm-catalan.github.io/osmcatmap/ with code forked
from Bicycle tags maps like this https://github.com/yopaseopor/customosmapp
you can do the map you want about any tag=value with no dedicated server
(only account of github). So if you are interested in all this stuff you
can do your map.

OSM is open, that's the richness of the project
Health and maps (Salut i mapes)
yopaseopor

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 4:52 PM Valor Naram via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Be sure that almost no data user will evaluate these tags
>
> ~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram
>
>
>  Original Message ----
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Strange tags
> From: ael
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> CC:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 09:09:16PM +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > donald=yes
> > ele=821
> > graham=no
> > man_made=cairn
> > munro=no
> > name=White Coomb
> > natural=peak
> > note=cairn yes
> > source=local_knowledge
> > wikidata=Q7994603
> > wikipedia=en:White Coomb
>
> These are well known terms in the UK, so I would think they are valid
> and useful tags.
>
> ael
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-29 Thread Paul Allen 
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 15:52, Valor Naram via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

Be sure that almost no data user will evaluate these tags
>

Really?

There are people who are VERY interested in these things.  People who want
to know where
Munros, Donalds, Grahams, Marilyns, TuMPs, etc. are.  Full list of the
terms at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_mountains_and_hills_in_the_British_Isles

They don't interest me in the slightest, but somebody who is interested
them could set up
a uMap page with layers for each category.  Or even set up dedicated carto
or an overlay (as
used by OpenSeaMap).  Or a phone app that lets you search for
hills/mountains of a particular
type then shows them on a map.

Don't assume your own lack of interest means that nobody is interested.
You know from the
tags that at least one person is interested.  And from the wikipedia page
it looks like a lot
of people are interested.

I'm not overly happy with the profusion of tag names, and think they ought
to be namespaced,
but that is a different issue.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-29 Thread Valor Naram via Tagging 
Be sure that almost no data user will evaluate these tags~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Strange tagsFrom: ael To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 09:09:16PM +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:> donald=yes> ele=821> graham=no> man_made=cairn> munro=no> name=White Coomb> natural=peak> note=cairn yes> source=local_knowledge> wikidata=Q7994603> wikipedia=en:White CoombThese are well known terms in the UK, so I would think they are validand useful tags.ael___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-29 Thread ael 
On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 09:09:16PM +0700, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> donald=yes
> ele=821
> graham=no
> man_made=cairn
> munro=no
> name=White Coomb
> natural=peak
> note=cairn yes
> source=local_knowledge
> wikidata=Q7994603
> wikipedia=en:White Coomb

These are well known terms in the UK, so I would think they are valid
and useful tags.

ael


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Strange tags

2019-09-29 Thread Dave Swarthout 
Hi,

I was mapping an area of geologic significance in Scotland, Dob's Linn,
today and as I was panning here and there looking at nearby features came
across some tags that I have never seen before. They were added back in
2010 so I didn't bother to try to contact the original mapper. Instead,
perhaps one of you has stumbled on similar tags in your work. I'm guessing
that the tags corbett, donald, graham, and munro were either contributors
to the data and their names preserved by user:marscot or something else I
can't fathom.

In a diary entry from 2009, user:marscot has this to say: "tomorrow I head
into the mountains to grab another 3 munros for me and osm, they are Cairn
Asoda and Cairnwell, and another one further along." I gather from Google
that a "munro" is a peak in Scotland that is less than 3000 ft in height.
All fine and dandy, but is that a valid tag? And what is a "donald", or 

corbett=yes
donald=yes
ele=821
graham=no
man_made=cairn
munro=no
name=White Coomb
natural=peak
note=cairn yes
source=local_knowledge
wikidata=Q7994603
wikipedia=en:White Coomb

-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging