To elaborate on my previous response, now that I'm back at a computer:
Would https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4992960980 be an example of (or
very similar to) what you're talking about?
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)
backs that up. The old USGS quad does have a point elevation of 9975' on
that knob, but it looks to more properly be a shoulder of a larger
mountain, not a proper mountain on its own.
I'm not suggesting that the current tagging is correct, but in this case
(and I believe in some others, although I don't even have anecdotes to back
that up), point elevation marks on USGS maps have become the "names" for
local topographical features. They're a little wonky on the
on-the-ground-verifiability (you can easily verify that a height-of-land
exists there, but I don't know that there's a sign or survey marker
indicating "this is 9975" or "this is 25 Short"), but [some] locals who
travel in the vicinity will use the reference. So it seems like something
that may be very reasonable to map, but I don't know what the best tagging
scheme is. I do think that normalizing to meters loses the meaning in the
current tag-for-the-renderer scheme, because a '3040m' label isn't going to
translate well to '25 Short' or '9975' unless you happen to particularly
good at math.
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:53 AM Dave Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> This is simply a way to get an otherwise unnamed peak to render and also,
> I suspect, to sidestep the inconvenience of converting the elevation to
> meters. AFAIK, there are no peaks with the generic name "Point" on any
> USGS Topos. In addition, placing the elevation into the name is another
> trick that should be discouraged.
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 2:38 PM Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@tutanota.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If it is a peak then ele=XXX and noname=yes would be OK.
>>
>> If it is not a peak it should not be present at all - otherwise it opens
>> way to importing
>> LIDAR data into OSM (and there are datasets with resolution of 5 cm,
>> dumping it
>> into OSM would be case of unverifiable data making it impossible to edit).
>>
>> I opened https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1703462 to reduce chance
>> that it will be discussed
>> and forgotten.
>>
>> If this is really used name - then it would be OK but my bet is that this
>> is not an actually used name.
>>
>> Mar 7, 2019, 7:04 PM by miketh...@gmail.com:
>>
>> It seems that there are a couple of mappers in Colorado US (at least,
>> perhaps mapping in other areas as well) who are adding spot elevations
>> (presumably from USGS Topo maps) to OSM tagging them as
>> natural=peak
>> name=Point (elevation in feet)
>>
>> For example:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4601119717
>>
>> What does the community think about this?
>>
>> natural=peak might be ok if said spot elevation is really a local high
>> point (some are not). The name I am less sure of. If this belongs on the
>> map at all, it should probably have an ele tag, with value in meters.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-us mailing list
>> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-us mailing list
> Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
>
--
Kevin Broderick
k...@kevinbroderick.com
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
