I wouldn't think of a volcano as an amenity. Ipofanes 14:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
natural=volcano or something like that will be much better than amenity, actually, think natural=volcano indicates it is a peak as well, but render it with a slightly different color. --Skippern 17:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Man-made hills and peaks
What about man-made hills (such as slap heaps, or artificial hills in parks)? Should they also be tagged natural=peak? Obviously "natural=" does not really fit here. On the other hand, for a map it's not really relevant whether an elevation is natural or not, since in practice they may look the same.
Sleske 23:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I guess there should be used man_made=peak tag. It is very rare up to this moment, but it would be good to start using it more. Moreover definition of natural=peak is so short and broad, that we may add more specific tag, at least "peak=mountain" and "peak=hill", to differentiate it from other uses. You can examine how it is used in Berlin for example. -- Kocio (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Priority in rendering different natural=peak
I think there should be some way of specifying the importance of a peak, because certain peaks are very important and well known (the highest point of each mountain, for instance), while others are hardly known.. some tag to define 2 or 3 levels of priprity, so that certain peaks render with name at low zoom levels, while others render only at higher zooms.. --Snaggy89 13:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Renderers should maybe use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence for this purpose. --*Martin* 22:19, 8 September 2011 (BST)
- Seems like prominence=* is in use for this (although the uk term would suggest prime_factor=*) --Gorm 16:13, 2 July 2012 (BST)
- This is a good idea. Let's see how (and if) I can use this idea for my map project. --Derstefan 00:16, 27 September 2011 (BST)
I don't like the suggested summit:* keys at all.
- There is no need for them, because a cross can be mapped as man_made=summit_cross or more generally as man_made=cross, while a register fits well to the tourism=* key, e.g. tourism=register/logbook/guestbook... Both crosses and registers are not limited to peaks. Registers are abundant on trails and in alpine huts and even in hotels.
- It seems inconsistent to apply this tagging scheme to crosses and logbooks, but not to other things commonly present on peaks, such as survey points and cairns.
- If the cross has a name on its own, it needs to be mapped as a separate object. Using an attribute-like tag like summit:cross=yes on that object looks strange.
--Fkv 20:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
summit:register=yes is ambiguous, it is semantically not obvious if it means the logbook on the summit, or that the summit is registered somewhere. Within the climbing namespace, climbing:summit_log=yes has been established, which is clearly related to the activity being logged. --Polarbear w (talk) 09:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Mountain with multiple peaks
A peak is not always equivalent to a mountain, there are sometimes mountains with multiple peaks! Recently I learnt about a mountain called Trzy Kopki ("Three Heaps"), which has three separate, distanced peaks, none of which is considered a "main" one. The peaks with their elevations are on the map already, but how to show that they all belong to one named mountain?
natural=rock vs. natural=peak
There is currently no clear differentiation between natural=rock and natural=peak. The example pictures on the rock page indicate insignifcant rocks, not forming a peak in the landscape. Rock as a material is a constituent of mountains, thus a significant elevation should not be tagged as natural=rock just because it is formed by rock.
- clear elevation and/or separation from the surrounding countryside
- having a name which is listed in regional guides and commonly used
- having a distinguishable summit head
- being of interest and value for climbers and mountaineers
- having a summit log
- It is absolutely clear. natural=rock maps to one specific physical object (see the wiki page for images), and natural=peak maps to the highest point of the plateau/mountain (which is immaterial). A lone climbing rock like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rock_(glacial_erratic) alone would not justify a natural=peak, while at the same time calling for a closed way with natural=scree and natural=cliff. —Jengelh (talk) 12:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Personally, I would not get the idea to mark those as unitary rocks, already because the surrounding area is all rocky (and therefore natural=scree or so in OSM, together with the cliff, as previously mentioned). So I would say it is a bunch of peaks (Bloßstock, Kreuzturm, Morsche Zinne as per the Wikipedia article). The government-kept map (geoviewer.sachsen.de) also happens to show them decidecly as peaks. –Jengelh (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)