Named Collections of Peaks

General talk Tagging general discussion
41

Perhaps my original post was confusing. In reality there are two peaks, Maroon Peak, and North Maroon Peak. Collectively they are called the “Maroon Bells”. In OSM, both are mapped and named with the above names. In OSM a third “peak” is mapped with name=Maroon Bells. There is no such “peak”, and mapping it as such is extremely misleading and deleting it is a bad idea as that name (Maroon Bells) is in common usage and a map without would be incomplete.

42

I think the priority should be on mapping the individual features - mapping them as a group would be of secondary importance. If it were me (and it has been, on topics like reservoirs and a few other peak combos in CO, though none as well known as the Maroon Bells), I would do this:

  • Map each peak separately with its own set of natural=peak tags.
  • In the case of the “Maroon Bells” name being as or more prominent than the individual peaks, I’d be inclined to use alt_name=Maroon Bells on both peaks for a little searching backward compatibility. I don’t usually do this in cases where reservoirs have names like “Valley Reservoir 1”, “Valley Reservoir 2”, etc., and the group is just “Valley Reservoirs”.
  • If there is a GNIS id for the grouped feature, leave that gnis_id on both peaks. That will show up as a duplicate in @watmildon 's GNIS validators, but it is still better than losing the ID entirely.
  • Then, if desired, try out one of the relation or region options discussed - relation=site isn’t a bad option for grouping the two together. A small “range” with a rough polygon isn’t terrible either. But whatever you did here would be supplementary to just tagging each one correctly and individually.
43

We can get any of the matchers and validators to conform to however folks like to map. So definitely no worries about that.

This reminds me a bit of the various “springs” features which are often collections of spot where they show up on the surface. Here’s one I mapped (Relation: ‪Needle Spring‬ (‪16005572‬) | OpenStreetMap).

As with many things that are highly varied, I suspect there’s a lot of grey area and “do your best” is likely gonna have to win the day.

44

Perhaps make a place=locality out of the third peak? Not perfect either, less wrong for a certain. Might get mistaken for the trough in-between the peaks, so a note “this is not a saddle” in order?