W dniu 08.07.2014 17:06, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
Thanks for your remarks!
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)
No clear distinction doesn't mean there's no distinction at all. And that's what we have now: no even the slightest distinction between all of them in OSM, while in the real observation (and in Wikipedia articles) it exists.
There are always corner cases (some even funny, like in "The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But Came Down a Mountain"), but if you are not sure, you can just leave it as general "peak", and when you're sure, you have currently no tool to make the distinction on the map.
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.)
2.1. It can be done, but peaks are also the orientation points/surfaces. Some of them have names because of that, some other do not, but many of them are of some importance to the people. And I want to have them reasonably tagged and mapped.
2.2. It can be done ("maybe in the future"), but ("now for sure") it isn't and we don't have too many ways of showing the terrain in OSM, while in the real life it is as prominent to see as buildings, ways etc.
2.3. The available (I mean technically AND copyright-wise) elevation data quality is weak.
-- Mambałaga _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
