I just discovered a strange(?) thing with the "natural=fell" tag which I
missed at first: on the wiki page there's two purposes defined of this
single tag, the first is landcover of bare mountain as discussed, and
the other purpose is, quote from the wiki:
"In the north of England, and probably in other areas of Norse influence
such as Iceland, Norway and Sweden, there is a practice of naming the
sides of hills, fells, rather than peaks. A single hill can have
different names on different sides. This tag can be used to record such
names."
It's true that we do have such a practice although more so at lower
altitudes. I recently added such a name on an alpine mountain as a fell
cutout with a fixme tag (there is no other tag for slopes I think,
didn't realize that "fell" is it). However as said we have "fell" in
that sense in forested areas as well, even more common there.
I guess if "fell without name tag" is defined as landcover, and "fell
with name tag" is defined as fuzzy area naming a side of a hill it could
work, but it's the first time I see this type of dual definition. Is it
normal, or is the wiki page just documenting how this tag have ended up
being used?
/Anders
On 2020-12-21 18:27, stevea wrote:
On Dec 21, 2020, at 7:10 AM, Tomas Straupis <tomasstrau...@gmail.com>
wrote:
2020-12-21, pr, 16:52 Anders Torger rašė:
But what to do if the things you want doesn't
really fit into what OSM currently is and strives to be...
We are ALL OSM community. If somebody tells you that "I am OSM and
only A is right" - do not believe them.
YOU define what OSM is and where it is going to by DOING.
The more I look at it, the more it seems that fragmentation is
inevitable. Question is how much will remain "common".
Thank you for saying it like this, Tomas. Fragmentation happens,
though it is not the end of OSM when it does. Private projects, when
they happen, don't necessarily harm OSM, they prove its strength as a
solid foundation of data upon which are built bespoke / custom
solutions. These even can (and do?) "link up" to form a stronger
fabric which "rides along with" the solid foundation. There are
examples of this in OSM right now. Truly, a lot of what was said in
the last few posts are bullseyes on a target:
• YOU define what OSM is by DOING (a crucially important truth!)
• While "local renderers" are by definition limited in their scope,
they need not be limited in their use: they can be practical/visual
proofs of "better ways" (to do things), testing grounds for finding
solutions to more international problems
• There are already local communities creating local cartographic data
schemas, this is already being talked about as becoming more-widely
and better integrated among data consumers (like yourself, Anders —
that's how this works)
• Making OSM into what we might use in the future as a "baseline" map
for a drop-in replacement for government maps (in Sweden, for example)
will doubtless earn us growing contributions that surpass the
government maps. Yes, that's a fair bit of sweat, work and time, but
it is worth it! (That's a fantastic dream, well-stated and shared by
many, Anders!)
• Agreeing on the goals FIRST (among peers who can, do and will work
towards them) takes energy, but it is worth it!
• It is easy to get hooked on this kind of mapping / data /
collaboration! It works, it is a lot of fun. Repeat ad infinitum.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
