We have the landmark tag - maybe natural=volcano/peak + landmark gets it’s own rendering terms?
There is the “hundred mountains of Japan” list - and 3 mountains in my prefecture are also considered “the three mountains of Gunma” - Akagi is on both. Would that let me claim it is not subjectively, but objectively a landmark? If you have a town, a shrine, a train line, a bus line, an aircraft carrier, and hundreds of companies named after it, how can I show that? If it’s labeled as a landmark you can see from the Tokyo Sky Tree in Tokyo, does that help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Famous_Japanese_Mountains <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_Famous_Japanese_Mountains> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunma_Prefecture#Prefectural_symbols <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunma_Prefecture#Prefectural_symbols> The problem is that even the data sets that show landmark status may not be verifiable to other OSM people - and they may feel that historical lists are subjective as well, so it is really tough to convey that to someone not familiar with the language or culture. This is where “maps for locals” runs headlong into OSM’s western heritage. Vesuvius is famous the world over as well. but how would we prove it’s status as a famous peak? lists and books and namesakes like Fuji? Let the local mappers make the best map they can! ~~~ besides all that, we still need to define “hill” - a 25-75m tall lump is not a peak - but it may be named or have elevation noted data sets. calling it a peak breaks language, intention of the peak tag, and rendering of peaks. it is a lose-lose-lose not having it. There is no benefit to not having it. we have ditches, streams, and rivers. swamps, ponds, lakes, and seas. Single trees, meadows, scrub, and woods. Why is there no scale for mountains? Javbw > On Apr 1, 2015, at 5:22 AM, Daniel Koć <[email protected]> wrote: > > W dniu 31.03.2015 11:22, Janko Mihelić napisał(a): >> Nominatim heavily uses the Wikipedia tag to decide which search result >> to put in front. So if you write "Paris" in the search box, Paris, >> Texas is not going to be the first result. They look at the length of >> the article, number of translated articles, or something like that. I >> see no reason renderers shouldn't use that too. > > Generally speaking they can, of course, but in case of default osm-carto > rendering there's no chance currently, since Andy is totally opposed to any > subjective measures: > > https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/337#issuecomment-88183184 > > However if we can find some - more or less - objective features, they could > have some weight in rendering algorithm. In case of cities it's being/not > being the admin_centre or population numbers, but I don't know what features > could it be for volcanos. Maybe elevation, caldera diameter or being a > tourist attraction? > > -- > Piaseczno Miasto Wąskotorowe > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
