On 26/07/2022 5:27 pm, Warin wrote:
I have done a few of these along the Gross Valley. In many cases there is a peak and I have taken the view that the 'head' is the top of the peak.
I did have a look at those.
In general I would disagree with the 'head' being the top of the peak, based on Geographic Names Board info.
Most of the heads are designated as "BLUFF", which suggests that the named point is where the cliff edge or steepening starts, rather than the peak. The exception was Edgeworth David Head, which is designated as "MOUNTAIN"
But marking them as peaks does obviously help with the rendering!
natural=point only has some ~400 uses world wide, no wiki page so .. low uses = no rendering. Choosing one of the additional tags will get rendering .. but it should be appropriate to the feature not just 'tagging for the render'
So from a long term perspective, is it better to just keep marking them as "natural=point", and once there is a critical mass, pushing for rendering? I'm not really clear on whether tags are supposed to be defined first, or if it's just based on use.
I'm not particularly fussed about whether or not they are rendered in the map. Rather, I'd like to see them in the data, in the most appropriate way.
Interestingly, it seems to be a showdown between NSW and Somalia as to who has the most "points" :)
cheers Tom ---- Canyoning? try http://ozultimate.com/canyoning Bushwalking? try http://bushwalkingnsw.com _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
