Relations are quite obnoxious in regular editing and also
during actually using the data.


Dec 14, 2020, 08:07 by [email protected]:

>
> Why is the relation problematic (honest question)?
>
>
> I was starting to think that some sort of naming relation could be the 
> answer, ie you put both peaks in a relation with for example type=name; 
> natural=mountain; name=Kebnekaise.
>
>
> In addition one should write clearly that peak serves dual purpose both as 
> naming peaks and mountains. Today on the wiki the peak is clearly defined as 
> only the summit, but it's often used as naming mountains where the peak is 
> nameless.
>
>
> What we also could have is fuzzy naming areas, which we would need in some 
> way or another at some point anyway, so you would have an area covering the 
> mountain with name=Kebnekaise. I would have no problem with that, but it 
> seems to that it must be in a separate database as it just too controversial 
> to be in the main database.
>
>
> /Anders
>
>
> On 2020-12-13 21:12, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
>
>
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Dec 13, 2020, 19:58 by [email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>> Do you have a suggestion of how to map Sweden's highest mountain, 
>>> Kebnekaise?
>>>
>>>
>>> The mountain is called Kebnekaise, it has two peaks, one is called 
>>> "Sydtoppen" ("the south peak"), the other "Nordtoppen" ("the north peak").
>>>
>>>
>> I admit that I have no good idea, if I would run into such case and failed 
>> to find a better idea
>> (hopefully one will come) I would invent a new way to tag that.
>>  
>> natural=mountain? Main problem is where to put it - node at arbitrary 
>> position between peaks?
>> Node at location of highest peak? Area? Relation? All of that is sadly 
>> problematic.
>>
>>>
>>> (The mountain_range tag is a great tag, but I note that its status is just 
>>> "in use", it's not an approved tag :-O.)
>>>
>>>
>> It is perfectly fine to use tags that never went through tagging proposal, 
>> though
>> I am not going to endorse this one. Tagging mountain ranges seems to poorly 
>> fit OSM
>> with multiple different opinions where mountain range starts/ends and 
>> inability to
>> verify it by survey.
>>  
>> All tags were in some stage rarely used before becoming heavily used,
>> only some cases went through a proposal process.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Reply via email to