2013/8/6 Yuri D'Elia <wav...@users.sourceforge.net> > > Might still be problematic. A forest, sometime lakes, rivers for sure > and many other big polygons will cross the boundary of the mountain group. >
I wouldn't tag rivers or forests with those tags, just nodes or little ways. Tagging everything within the mountain with that tag would create lots of data that could be considered garbage. But if you only tag peaks and alpine_huts, maybe it could be manageable. > > It's kind of unfortunate, because a mountain group will span across > italian regions and include parts of several valleys. Of course, > likewise, valleys have the same problem. It's not a hierarchical > information either. > > It's really a topographical information, and I feel like tagging objects > within or using relations might be really problematic. Just imagine what > kind of "spotty" tagging would you have for big mountain groups. Huts > and peaks would definitely not be enough for a decent boundary. > I made this picture, maybe it clears my point: http://i.imgur.com/CeFG2WO.png A software would look for the lowest contour line (altitude) that is between points with different mountain tags. I have a feeling it would work, but I never tried it. Maybe some problems would arise. > > But also drawing big areas is kind of ugly :(. > Maybe the solution is a separate OSM database, used specifically for these polygons. Janko
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
