W dniu 08.07.2014 20:25, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
I agree, man_made=mound isn't a bad idea.
Great, feel free to make such amendments!
My original proposition is rather wide, since I'm not familiar with many
types of terrain objects and don't want to pretend I get the whole
picture. Discussion about it learns me something.
I wouldn't question all peaks and require a subtag like
descent=natural for what can and has in the past sufficiently been
described with natual=peak. If there are a few mounds between the
currently tagged objects, you can always retag those few, but
retagging all peaks because there are some questionable ones between
them is not a good idea (IMHO).
I wrote about how it should be done right, while you talk about problems
with changing what we have now, and that's a bit different question. I
don't know how far we should go to make these whole "terrain matters"
sane, but if we feel it really needs serious surgery, than the
transition problems will arise inevitably. They are one of the main
reasons why we have historical luggage at all (the other one is people
getting used to some quirks).
If we would plan this transition, there are few possible strategies to
take:
1. Convert all "natural=peak" into "terrain=peak+descent=natural",
because this is the most accurate and conservative tag translation.
2. Convert all "natural=peak" into "terrain=peak" and leave the
"descent" key to be filled later, because we're not sure what the peak
descent really is, as the "natural" namespace was already
overloaded/abused (that is the strategy I would choose).
3. Don't convert anything, since we know this is important tag and a
rendering implementation will lag - just add a new tag to the previous
one. Then we could also overuse existing top-level "natural=peak" and
"man_made=peak" instead of (IMHO better) lower-level "descent=*" key.
4. Convert all "natural=peak" into "natural=terrain+terrain=peak" and
also define "man_made=terrain" or allow a little strange tagging:
"natural=terrain+terrain=peak+descent=artificial".
So we have many ways to resolve this. But I'm more interested in
rethinking actual state of things as much, as it's possible, and only
than think about how to make it technically. I know terrain in OSM is a
broad topic, but I think it's time to touch it at least. Tagging it will
be just the outcome of the choosing the right mental model.
I have tagged many of them with historic=tomb and tomb=tumulus (and
eventually also with building=tumulus) but they can also be considered
"mounds".
Hm, not all the mounds are tombs.
***
BTW: Did you know the http://openworldmap.org leads to
http://openstreetmap.org? Looks like I was not the first who thinks
about better name of the current project. =} However
http://openworldmap.com/ is some crazy commercial entity using OSM
data...
--
Mambałaga
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
