Yeah, you may be right, but I see it like this: in cases where "complex"
naming is a reality, complex schemes are unavoidable, if we want to
support it at all. It's not like one would use the most complex method
in every case, just where it's needed. To use an old saying, Einstein I
think: "make it as simple as possible, but no simpler". Now we are at
some places making it so simple that it becomes incorrect.
I haven't really figured out if the OSM community as a whole actually
want to support these types of things though. It's quite meaningless to
fight for a tiny feature in this space if the whole concept of naming
nature is frowned upon. That there are so many features still missing or
poorly defined in this space after so many years does indicate that it
has least hasn't been a priority. It's called open*street*map after
all...
My sense is that OSM community do want naming in nature as well, but
only if it can be made very simple. Unfortunately that is not always
compatible with reality, and here we are...
/Anders
On 2020-12-14 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Relations are quite obnoxious in regular editing and also
during actually using the data.
Dec 14, 2020, 08:07 by and...@torger.se:
Why is the relation problematic (honest question)?
I was starting to think that some sort of naming relation could be the
answer, ie you put both peaks in a relation with for example type=name;
natural=mountain; name=Kebnekaise.
In addition one should write clearly that peak serves dual purpose both
as naming peaks and mountains. Today on the wiki the peak is clearly
defined as only the summit, but it's often used as naming mountains
where the peak is nameless.
What we also could have is fuzzy naming areas, which we would need in
some way or another at some point anyway, so you would have an area
covering the mountain with name=Kebnekaise. I would have no problem
with that, but it seems to that it must be in a separate database as it
just too controversial to be in the main database.
/Anders
On 2020-12-13 21:12, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
Dec 13, 2020, 19:58 by and...@torger.se:
Do you have a suggestion of how to map Sweden's highest mountain,
Kebnekaise?
The mountain is called Kebnekaise, it has two peaks, one is called
"Sydtoppen" ("the south peak"), the other "Nordtoppen" ("the north
peak").
I admit that I have no good idea, if I would run into such case and
failed to find a better idea
(hopefully one will come) I would invent a new way to tag that.
natural=mountain? Main problem is where to put it - node at arbitrary
position between peaks?
Node at location of highest peak? Area? Relation? All of that is sadly
problematic.
(The mountain_range tag is a great tag, but I note that its status is
just "in use", it's not an approved tag :-O.)
It is perfectly fine to use tags that never went through tagging
proposal, though
I am not going to endorse this one. Tagging mountain ranges seems to
poorly fit OSM
with multiple different opinions where mountain range starts/ends and
inability to
verify it by survey.
All tags were in some stage rarely used before becoming heavily used,
only some cases went through a proposal process.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
