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)
- In mining regions you will find far more "man_made" peaks than "natural" ones. After WWII German cities often got hills made of debris after the air raids that are very prominent peaks. Some "peaks" in Northern Germany are actually tumulus, but the knowledge about their origin is not widespread. I never saw a map distinguishing between natural and man made hills and I don't think either it is wise, because a map should show what there actually is. If somebody feels it's important, he/she could add peak-type=natural|man_made? --GerdHH (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Yes sure, between the comment in 2014 and yours, the definition had been refined already after discussion on the tagging list, and includes "natural + renaturalised features". Please also note that "peak" does not map the hill, it maps the highest point. Thus while the hill could be man made, the peak is immaterial and not "made".--Polarbear w (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2017 (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)