Talk:Proposed features/key:prominence

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I'm curious why this is designed as a top level tag, rather than a subtag. That is, why not make this tag as peak:prominence? As a subtag, it would be cleaner if were to later extend this concept to other top level tags, such as building:prominence. --DanHomerick 00:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Only because I am mapper for one month only, and was not aware of any multi-level key policy. I don't think there is any guideline for multi-level key on the wiki? I found more of the "tag as you like" stuff. Anyway, I think peak:prominence is a good idea, and if other don't protest, I will change the proposal to peak:prominence. Then peak:isolation could be used for --Egil Hjelmeland
As far as I can tell, there isn't a key policy of any sort. But I'm also a fairly new mapper, and haven't been listening to the talk mailing list until recently, so I don't really know. My comment above just reflects my personal preference for hierarchical organization, rather than lumping everything in a top-level namespace. --DanHomerick 07:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
If the key prominence could be used for other things, that it is better for it to remain in main namespace than as a subtag. For example Key:ele could be used for marking different things (and not just peaks) so it remains in main namespace. IMO the same is probably true for prominence. Subkeys are kind of kludge anyway (they don't exist really - "key:subkey" is no different that "KeySubkey" or "key_subkey" or whatever). But note that I'm not sure if such a key is needed; do you really have such a rendering problem in real life ? And if you do, is it of such degree that it couldn't be solved with more "aproximate" Key:ele ? --mnalis 21:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes. It is not to be assumed that key names with a colon (':') in them, AKA "namespaces", are a good idea. Often it's just adding unnecessarily complexity to tags where they could be kept nice and simple. At the moment there isn't a clear policy/guideline on when they should be used, and when not. For the purposes of new proposals, mostly I'd say they should not be used.
There also isn't clearly established terminology for these things. We talk about "top level" tags or "core" tags. But it's not entirely clear what that means. Then there's the kind of tags which are listed as 'Properties' : Map Features#Properties. These are tags which get used in combination with some other "top level" tag, to provide more... properties of the object. You'll notice there's no requirement for any of these to use ':' namespacing.
-- Harry Wood 09:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Relation: type=peak

I'm mapping prominence like this: I join natural=peak and natural=saddle points with natural=ridge ways. Then I grab the peak point and create a relation with the folowing tags:

  • type=peak
  • ele=586
  • prominence=240
  • name=Whatever

And add the following points and ways with the following roles:

  • peak --> the peak i'm checking
  • key_col --> the key col or key saddle point of that peak // That is, the highest saddle point following the ridges that drop from the peak, if there is a higher peak at the other side; if else, try the next one.
  • key_ridge --> the ridge/ridges that join the key_col and the peak.
  • parent_peak --> the parent peak of the peak we're checking // That is, the highest point inside the "8 shape" formed by the key_col height contour.
  • parent_ridge --> the ridge/ridges that join the key_col and the parent peak.

--Iagocasabiell (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)