> > >>Where are these features located? > > >Inland. Not near the sea. > >Not all ridges end as a promontory - some have gradual slopes. Not all > promontory are a peak, they may have a line at about the same height > leading away from them. > >They are named as 'point' here but the closest in wikipedia I could find > is promontory. So I used that term. >
Interesting. So this is a "node" on a ridge which doesn't qualify as a summit because it's topographic prominence is zero (it isn't the highest point, even locally). But it looks kind of like a pointy peak from the low ground around it, and therefore has a local toponym. I actually think there are a number of named features currently tagged natural=peak which are really points or promontories by this definition. Eg: https://www.opentopomap.org/#map=14/51.82578/10.68691 vs https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/51.82578/10.68691 It would be nice to have a more precise tag, so that mappers would not mis-tag named points of hills or ridges as peaks when they are not actually a summit. Place=locality doesn't give any that it is a geological feature. I would personally use natural=*, because it fits with all the similar features: natural=ridge, natural=peak, natural=volcano, natural=cliff, natural=valley etc. It would be somewhat ambiguous to use natural=promontory, because as wikipedia says, this could be a headland or cape, as well as an inland point or promontory above a valley. Natural=point could also work. However, if you document the tag with a short wiki page (proposal) that would be enough to avoid confusion, and we could also put a note on the natural=cape wiki page warning against mistagging with natural=point or =promontory. -Joseph Perhaps 'cape' should be dropped in favour of promontory as that could be > used for both land and sea? :) > PS: ha ha :-) > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
