On 24/09/2018 07:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
 Right! Especially on my island, New Guinea.  
  That’s why we need to check the height of saddles and peaks “by hand”, or 
better yet by survey with GPS.  
  OSM is the right place for this data, and some map styles and database users 
will find it useful to analyze data about mountain areas and peaks. 
  For example, even those lists of “tallest peaks” actually use topographic 
prominence as a cutoff. Otherwise the highest peaks on Earth would all be rocks 
and bumps on the slopes of Everest.  
  Most of us just estimate the prominence of a peak intuitively, before 
choosing to add one to the map. Clearly, a 5 meter tall bump isn’t a peak. 
Perhaps a 10 meter rise may have a name in England or Denmark, where mountains 
are scare. In other contexts a peak won’t be named unless it is 100m or 200m 
above the nearest saddle on a ridge.  
    On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 12:59 PM Yves <yve...@mailbox.org> wrote:
I don't see no issue in mapping prominence for those interested in.
 Just to mention for the sake of the discussion that 'sufficiently accurate 
DEM' doesn't exists globally.
 Yves _______________________________________________
 Tagging mailing list
 _______________________________________________Tagging mailing 
listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging A 
few points on this thread: * Prominence has been added for every significant 
peak in Scotland (along with which hill-bagging group they are members of). The 
peaks called Marilyns (a play on the more famous Munros - peaks over 3000 ft) 
are entirely based on prominence, and are sufficiently well known in the UK to 
have a guidebook. Overpass query: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/Cbi * What Michael 
describes sounds very much like something close to topographic isolation 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_isolation). Co-incidentally I looked 
at calculating something like this after a recent conversation with Stefan 
Keller (prompted by a wikipage on Dominance: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Maxbe/Dominanz_von_Gipfeln). I simply 
calculated the closest, higher peaks for all Swiss peaks and then filtered by 
that distance (e.g. over 5 or 10 km). This produces a reasonably good 
distribution of peaks (see 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qoe2y9d6n6pjh0c/ch_peak_iso.jpg?dl=0), and can 
obviously be adjusted by other parameters. * One problem with prominence is 
that it is probably most easily obtained from non-open sources (such as those 
used to populate wikipedia), and equally there is temptation to use copyright 
maps for information on saddle points. For the peaks with a very significant 
prominence (say 1000 m or more) this is less of a problem as most can be 
deduced very quickly. * Peak names can be an issue when the high point is part 
of a group of peaks with an encompassing name (Dufourspitze Monte Rosa, 
Breithorn Occidentale/Westgipfel comes to mind). The Matterhorn traditionally 
has 2 summits (the Swiss & Italian ones), but only one is mapped, avoiding this 
issue for that peak.
  * Many peaks which sit on national boundaries are not on located as part of 
the border way on OSM, and may therefore not be included in peaks with a 
country filter. There are several examples near Zermatt. Thanks to Kevin Kenny 
& others who have pointed out the theoretical value of prominence. Jerry
Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to