The small sub-summits around the caldera of a tall volcano (eg Mt Fuji) are a great example of why prominence=* is useful. I don't think it works call each of those local high points on Mt Fuji's crater a "hill", if they are all at >3000m elevation with steep slopes dropping >1000 meters down to the valley or plain below. But if they are all natural=peak, we need a way to distinguish them, besides elevation. The highest point on Mt Fuji will have a very high prominence (>1500 meters), while the other peaks will have <100m prominence. Prominence separates true mountain peaks from sub-peaks nicely, in an objective way.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 9:26 AM John Willis <jo...@mac.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 25, 2018, at 5:08 AM, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There is an attempt to document what a hill is and how its separated from > a (natural=)peak by separating them on prominence. > > > > TL;DR - you are dealing with a very high volume of named “sub-peaks / > prominences / whatever-mountaineering-term-you-want ” on large mountains > *and* a large volume of small and modest hills in valley floors or > otherwise flat terrain - Perhaps prominence can handle them, but please > remember that this is not *just* about defining sub-peaks of very tall > mountains - there are a lot of little tiny hills that in some cultures > would never be named that have officially mapped names in others. > > ***** > > There are landscape types *and* cultural naming traditions that lend > themselves to using =peak exclusively - places with very large mountains > with easily identifiable points as the top. > > in California, at least down in San Diego, naming almost all mountains > using =peak is probably acceptable. tiny lumps and bumps on the mountains > and on the valleys simply aren't named (at least offically, I have looked > at a lot of topos). Official maps are not cluttered with mountains names. > > I was amazed when I moved to Japan - the mountains are not only much > denser, but they are very jagged. And since people lived in hamlets around > each of them for hundreds and hundreds of years, every lump, bump, and > little hill the size of a 4 story building is a named “mountain”. > > Google even makes fun of it when they made an online ad for “okay google” > about a tourist family that confused the 30m tall “Mt Fuji” in my town with > the iconic Mount Fuji when getting directions. > > I was browsing reddit a couple days ago, and someone posted a map from > 1843 that someone drew of the regions surrounding Mount Fuji. it is roughly > 400x300 KM. > > https://i.redd.it/p72gso7m90o11.jpg > > every one of those little green bumps is a full =peak. there are probably > 5X little bumps and lumps on them that are named. **And then** there are > the little hills that poke out of a valley floors by 20-50 meters that also > get officially named - you could hide them behind an average size school > building - but are named. local natural paper maps have names cluttering up > every available spot on the paper. > > even modest hills get rendered the same as massive volcanoes. > > https://camo.githubusercontent.com/d3a7f027a0b83fdf143af0569445bb87788d857a/68747470733a2f2f662e636c6f75642e6769746875622e636f6d2f6173736574732f363231323635362f323038363931312f61393431393065362d386536312d313165332d383034372d3534393334653936373363372e6a7067 > > > Also, several caldera volcanoes are nationally or internationally famous, > and they have named every little point along their asymmetrical rim - the > volcano tag for them should be rendered z8, and the smaller hills around > the top at z16 - but as it stands there is no way to say “these little > points on the rim are insignificant compared to the 2000m tall volcano > visible to 20 million people and namesake to thousands of things and > places, and these 6 little points are only important to people hiking > nearby. “ > > > https://camo.githubusercontent.com/f1b781cd91970b27ff390b5355cab2ffa8531578/68747470733a2f2f662e636c6f75642e6769746875622e636f6d2f6173736574732f363231323635362f323038363937382f66353063353562342d386536322d313165332d383932392d3531303536366134633433622e6a7067 > > > trying to map all of these as =peaks ***reeks*** of data pollution. > > I hope a good solution is found - EVEN IF it is just the mapper’s > intuition. enough input should provide consensus. > > Javbw > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
