Thanks for starting this discussion. Personally I think it makes sense to define different types of peaks in the data. It would solve the problem we have now, where tiny hillocks are rendered just like huge mountains.
On 8 July 2014 15:14, SomeoneElse <li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk> wrote: > The "Proposed_features" page seems confused about tagging and rendering > though - given that local terrain height is available in most parts of the > world from external sources, couldn't a map that wanted to suppress hillocks > do so simply by comparing elevation with that? That's not a particularly easy computation to calculate or define. I think in this case, defining this in the tagging is fine. > Also, the normal way to "define" OSM features is by going out and mapping > them - so I'd go out and do that first, rather than worry about getting a > "proposal" "accepted". For a consistent tagging scheme, I think it's much better to discuss and define things first. > OSM needs mappers far more than it needs proposal writers. I strongly disagree with that. -- Matthijs _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
