> peaks are contained in DEMs, why map them in OSM Mainly so we can add their name=* and elevation based on survey.
But also, DEMs have trouble localizing point and line features, so if you climb the peak or walk along a ridgeline to check the location with GPS, it is usually more accurate than most DEMs. For the same reasons, mapping a dyke or embankment or cutting as a line is a great idea. Mapping the area is less important, since usually adding 'width=' is enough, or mapping 2 embankment lines on each side, though I am not opposed to other mappers doing this if they really want to. On 11/19/19, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > Am Di., 19. Nov. 2019 um 04:49 Uhr schrieb Joseph Eisenberg < > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>: > >> Are you sure that the information that you want is not already >> available from a Digital Elevation Model? >> > > > I do not agree with this. DEMs (at least what is commonly and freely > available currently) do not provide the same kind of information, and are > generally lacking the resolution and in particular, do not contain specific > detail (e.g. shape), they treat every spot the same, are not focused on > features (you can recognize the features that are visible and discernible > on them, but they do not specifically represent them). We could also say: > the buildings and roads are already on aerial imagery, no need to map them > ;-). Or peaks are contained in DEMs, why map them in OSM? > > > Large embankments should be clearly visible in the topography, so we >> do not need to reproduce them as 3D model in the database, any more >> than we need to map the exact contours of a quarry or mountain. >> > > > if there are interesting features on a mountain (particularly those > features with names or other attributes, wikipedia references etc.), we do > map them, (e.g. peaks, ridges, passes, ...) > > Cheers > Martin > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
