Perhaps they should be tagged not as peaks then but as a place node (place=locality probably)?
> On Mar 8, 2019, at 10:23 AM, Mike Thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 6:29 AM Kevin Broderick <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Would https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4992960980 > <https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4992960980> be an example of (or very > similar to) what you're talking about? > Yes, slightly different, but same general concept. > > > I've been told that one is a local reference point ("25 Short", ie. 25 feet > short of 10k), and at least one article > (https://rootsrated.com/stories/a-quick-and-dirty-guide-to-the-best-backcountry-skiing-in-jackson-hole > > <https://rootsrated.com/stories/a-quick-and-dirty-guide-to-the-best-backcountry-skiing-in-jackson-hole>) > backs that up. > I have seen back country trip reports mention such points (at least those > that are high points), and they have *some* value therefore, but as I > suggested earlier, "point n,nnn" is to me more of a description rather than a > name in most cases. > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
