> On Sep 26, 2018, at 6:46 AM, Kevin Kenny <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't actually mind 'natural=peak' for any named local maximum > elevation.
In so many places, Lumps and bumps are simply not named. But in some places, they are. People who see Mount Fuji every day have no idea all 8 high points on the rim of a caldera are all named points (unmapped in OSM until yesterday). People in their daily lives and the OSM dataset don't know of the blizzard of named points that could should be mapped. This is true of mountainous areas all over the world - people don't realize the level of naming that occurs. In the city near me, there is a hill in a park. It is about 15m AGL. But it is an historic hill with a name. https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3227944176 It may have an msl elevation of 108m, but my middle school's library is larger than this "peak". It is shorter than the trees in the flat part of the park. There are places that need some granularity. If you want the tag for a top of a mountain, the word is "summit". A peak has a different connotation. "Foobar Peak" is usually used to name a tall mountain. It is also used to denote the small points on a large or famous mountain. If people make a peak=* subtag, make =hill tag, or add prominence data, or simply add som way denote locally / regionally / nationally / internationally famous mountains (which would affect their rendering at zlevels) - whatever - something needs to be done to filter out tiny lumps scattered around and small named bumps on a larger mountain. Javbw.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
