Am 08.07.2014 17:52, schrieb fly: > Am 08.07.2014 17:06, schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: >> >> 2014-07-08 15:59 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć <dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl >> <mailto:dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl>>: >> >> I just made the proposal page for discussion about enhancing >> natural=peak tag: >> >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/__wiki/Proposed_features/peak >> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/peak> >> >> This is my first attempt to define OSM features. >> >> >> >> I am not sure this is something we'd want in OSM for at least 2 reasons: >> >> 1. As you (and wikipedia) write, there is no clear distinction between >> mountain and hill, so this is subjective (you write it in the proposal) >> >> 2. The analysis of the other peaks in the area and the topography in >> general can be done automatically both, based on OSM data and on >> additional elevation data (like from hgt rasters, Aster, SRTM, other >> DEMs, etc.) >> >> So this is probably not something we'd have to map manually, as it could >> be automatically derived. I agree that the current rendering is not >> always optimal, but this could be resolved in the rendering system, no >> need to do it in the base data. Or maybe I got you wrong? > > > If you really want to get some useful information in the data you could > have a look at topographic prominence [1] and isolation [2] (german page > is much better). Though, Martin is right that this information could be > automatically calculated. > > Cheers fly >
Sorry forgot the links: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_isolation _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging