Yes, it's always complicated, isn't it? I realize many folks are interested in climbing all the peaks on certain lists. Good for them. The Adirondack 46ers was the only one familiar to me.
As I said, I have no stake in this. It was mostly curiosity that motivated me to bring it to the Tagging group. On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 8:40 AM Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 7:51 PM Dave Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > Well, I'll be damned. These hikers, or "hillbaggers", are using these > tags for their own purposes. Many of them could easily be derived from the > ele tag. I have no stake in whether they do that or not except to say that > it encourages others to make up tags for their own regional uses. In New > York State there is a list of 46 peaks that top 4,000 feet and anyone who > summits them joins the group called "The 46ers." But nobody maps them with > 46er=yes/no because this information is immediately obvious from the ele > tag. > > Actually, it's the list of peaks that were thought to be above 4000 > feet (and with requirements for prominence and isolation) at the time > that the club was founded. Simple elevation is not enough to determine > this. Because of prominence and isolation requirements, Pyramid Peak > (4597 ft AMSL) is not on the list; it is considered to be a subsidiary > summit of Gothics. Similarly, Little Marcy and Schofield Cobble are > considered subsidiary summits of Mount Marcy, but Gray Peak squeaks in > with just barely the required prominence. Moreover, it turns out in > modern surveys that Mount Blake, Cliff Mountain, Nye Mountain and > Couchsachraga are all less than 4000 feet AMSL, while MacNaughton > Mountain tops 4000 feet but is not one of the 46. Finally, Slide > Mountain (4120 feet) and Hunter Mountain (4040 feet) are excluded by > being outside the Adirondack Park - they are both clearly above 4000 > feet and have tremendous prominence, but they're in an entirely > different range. > > The Catskill 35 (which has Slide and Hunter as its two tallest peaks) > are another list that's locally significant. It purports to be the "35 > summits above 3500 feet in the Catskills" but once again that's an > oversimplification. For it, the prominence and isolation rules have > been fine-tuned over the years to keep the list stable. "The Dink", > south of Cornell Mountain, "Camel's Hump" west of Thomas Cole > Mountain, or "Little Slide" north of Slide Mountain all are > unquestionably named peaks above 3500 feet, but either are not > prominent enough or are too close to a different peak. The definitions > have to be tuned very finely, however, to keep Wittenberg from being > considered a subsidiary summit of Cornell Mountain. Since the club's > founding, only one peak has been added to the list: its name is > Southwest Hunter, or Leavitt Peak, or Hill 3750, depending on what > version of the list you consult. It was nameless until its inclusion > on the list meant that hikers needed a name for it. (Grace Peak in the > Adirondacks has a somewhat similar story, and did indeed acquire a > name from being listed.) The current feeling in the club appears to be > that the list should now be fixed as it stands. If it turns out, as is > plausible, that the high point of Dry Brook Ridge or Millbrook Ridge > tops out above 3500 feet, the sentiment appears to be that they should > not be added. > > The Catskill 35 list also contains four summits (Slide, Blackhead, > Balsam [Ulster County] and Panther) that have to be climbed twice - at > least once in winter. The choice of which summits were included in > that list appears to have been entirely arbitrary, and the club > founders never offered an explanation. > > Given that the lists at this point are arbitrary, there's really no > way to represent the list membership other than making up some > entirely arbitrary scheme. If asked to come up with something, I'd > probably put the 46 summits in a group relation and hang the name > 'Adirondack 46' off that. I'd do a similar thing for the Catskill 35, > but then scratch my head about how to identify the Winter Four. > > As it is, I use information external to OSM for rendering this area so > that the list memberships can be shown - they are quite important to > the local hikers, many of whom are chasing their Adirondack 46'er or > Catskill 3500 Club badges. Peak-bagging is a serious sport around > here! > > I've not tried to add the information because I eschew controversy. I > know that on the 'tagging' list there are hard-liners who would even > challenge adding the peaks' names to the list, on the grounds that the > names for the most part cannot be observed in the field. (Look at a > topo map, or ask virtually any local 'what mountain is that big one?' > while pointing, and you'll get an answer, but for many of these peaks > I don't think I've ever seen a sign with the name, so I've been told > that in such a case the name is not verifiable!) > > At least Summits-on-the-Air (an Amateur Radio group that competes in > communicating with operators who bring portable equipment to the > summits for temporary activations) assigns reference numbers (the > Adirondack list is at https://summits.sota.org.uk/region/W2/GA) so I > could use a 'ref:sota' tag to label its peaks if I desired. The > Adirondack 46, the Northeast 111, the Catskill 35, etc. just use the > names, so that's not an option that's available to me. > > Since there are communities, in many parts of the world, that are > interested in the local peak-bagging lists, and many references are > available to verify what peaks are members of what lists, I'd be > exceedingly reluctant to say, "no, you may not have that information > in OSM." I'm content with using external data to drive my own > rendering, but I surely understand the desire for "one-stop shopping". > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
