If it’s locally known as such, to my mind, it’s totally fine tagging it that way, even if it’s only by backcountry skiers. I would say this is common in OSM, I see (and appreciate) a lot of named trails that are not always signposted as such but locally known by those names (like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/624949038 <https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/624949038>). Local knowledge trumps most everything in OSM.
If it’s just a shortcut to have the main OSM map display elevation in feet, that’s not right, but it indicates a need that is currently unaddressed: displaying elevation in local units on the main map. I don’t see a ticket currently on the osm-carto repo that addresses this. I think it would be hard to get ’regional’ rendering preferences accepted however. A better / other way to improve on this is to change the convention for the ele tag to be more like maxspeed: default to meters but allow other units to be entered as ‘8801 ft’ for a value. Then osm-carto could pick that up more easily. Martijn > On Mar 8, 2019, at 6:27 AM, Kevin Broderick <k...@kevinbroderick.com> wrote: > > To elaborate on my previous response, now that I'm back at a computer: > > Would https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4992960980 > <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 > > <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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 > <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 <mailto: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 > <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 <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us> > > > -- > Dave Swarthout > Homer, Alaska > Chiang Mai, Thailand > Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com > <http://dswarthout.blogspot.com/>_______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-us@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us> > > > -- > Kevin Broderick > k...@kevinbroderick.com > <mailto:k...@kevinbroderick.com>_______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
