On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 18:25, Jan Michel <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 29.09.19 17:07, Paul Allen wrote: > > > There are people who are VERY interested in these things. People who > > want to know where Munros, Donalds, Grahams, Marilyns, TuMPs, etc. are. > > Well... There is no documentation of these tags in the OSM wiki. > True. Perhaps that means they should be documented as opposed to being deleted upon sight. Or perhaps something else should be done about them. ael mentioned that these are well-known terms. I tried several > translators and dictionaries but didn't find anything. > A Google search only finds the wiki "List of mountains and hills > on the British islands", but not much more related information. > When I tried it I got a lot of hits, but the wikipedia article seemed the obvious one to mention here, as it's fairly comprehensive. I learned far more about the subject than I ever wanted to know from it. These seem to be very local terms that are not used outside of Scotland > (British Isles?). British Isles. With regional variations in where such terms are commonly used. Only Scotland has Munros but, in the rest of the British Isles, peaks matching the criteria of a Munro are called Furths. In general we oppose such local terms as keys because > they won't be of any use outside a small area. > There are equivalents outside the British Isles, such as the Eight-thousanders (peaks over 8,000 m). Looking at the tag history, most of these were added in a few larger > edits in 2014 and 2015. > Possibly by a small number of users who were also hillbaggers. Doesn't really affect whether they should be documented or deleted. At some point we'll have mapped all the rivers and streams in the world, and years will go by with nobody mapping a river or stream - would that be grounds for deleting rivers and streams? What information do these terms contain exactly? What I understand from > the Wiki page, the names are determined by three properties: The > location (to be found from boundary relations), the height (tagged as > 'ele') and the prominence (tagged as 'prominence'). > If I'm reading it correctly, the location is the position of the peak. Position, elevation and prominence can be determined from ele=* and prominence=*, but those are not always mapped. The other factor, which you didn't mention, is isolation. However, there's no quantitative metric of isolation, so that hits a verifiability problem. The nature of the peak CAN be determined from existing tags, but only if those tags are actually used (and only for the types where isolation isn't a factor). There's not much use of prominence=* as yet. My very personal conclusion / opinion: These tags are undiscussed, > Yep. But there are a lot of de facto tags that are undiscussed. Sadly. undocumented, Yep. But that is fixable. If we choose to. Even if the documentation says "Don't use these tags" :). > not well-understood outside a small area Perhaps more of a problem. Although that could only be a problem because of the way they've been tagged, as opposed to the information in the tags. See on. and useless because they can be derived from a few documented, verifiable > tags. > Only where those tags are present. There are many peaks without an elevation or prominence. There are many peaks with an elevation but no prominence. However, because I've had to do more digging to answer you, my thinking on this has changed a little. These aren't really describing physical characteristics so much as the appearance of a particular peak on a list of peaks matched by some characteristics (not all of which are necessarily physical). E.g., the Wainwrights are the 214 fells in the English Lake District that have a chapter in one of Alfred Wainwright's Pictorial Guides to the Lakeland Fells. As such, I think these would be better handled by relations (assuming it wouldn't be a database killer), if they're handled at all. They're just lists, in the same way that a cycling route is a list of ways that somebody decided made up a cycling route: not an inherent physical property but an aggregation. Except, of course, cycling routes often have signs. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
