[patch] Add natural=hill preset

[hhtznr]

Recognize ​natural=hill and render tagged notes using a dedicated icon. This tag is also rendered by OsmAnd.

The attached patch includes:

• Icon for hill.svg (based on peak.svg, 60 % of peak height of)
• Icon for hill_viewpoint.svg (based on peak_viewpoint.svg)
• Additions to defaultpresets.xml to render tagged notes using icons
• Additions to elementstyles.mapcss to include tag in selection list of key natural

[hhtznr]

Will this be added to presets?

[gaben]

What is the difference between a peak and a hill in OSM terms? Both are point-like objects on the map, and both can have elevation data.

The wiki says:

a hill is generally less visually prominent, less tall (with a lower ele=*) and less steep, and as such it is easier to climb

For me, it sounds very subjective.

[hhtznr]

Replying to gaben:

What is the difference between a peak and a hill in OSM terms? Both are point-like objects on the map, and both can have elevation data.

The wiki says:

a hill is generally less visually prominent, less tall (with a lower ele=*) and less steep, and as such it is easier to climb

For me, it sounds very subjective.

It is as you cite the wiki. A hill has less topographical prominence compared to a peak which is most often associated with a mountain summit. The distinction of both terrain features is as subjective as that between other terrain features like valley and gorge, arete and ridge, mud and dirt, etc.

In the landscape where I live (foothills of the Alps), the distinction between peaks and hills makes sense. There are steeper elevations of a hundred meters or more with respect to the surroundings which can be considered peaks. And there are less pronounced elevations of several ten meters in elevation which can be considered hills. Yet, hills may offer a viewpoint and have a landmark tree, a cross, a bench and alike on top. However, it would be exaggeration to mark such elevations as peaks.

OsmAnd renders the hill tag. It uses a triangle that looks like the peak tag, but with markedly reduced height (similar to the proposed icon). Further, in OsmAnd, you need to zoom further into the map for hills to appear. As an example, you can have a look at the area close to 47.66309° N, 10.00492° E, where a peak is mapped to the east and two hills are mapped to the west.

[taylor.smock]

Replying to hhtznr:

Will this be added to presets?

We look for a variety of things when adding a new default preset. See wiki:DevelopersGuide/DefaultPresets for details.

Big things:

• Has a ​OSM wiki page
• Decent usage
  • 46k instances
    • A good chunk of these are from what appear to be bulk edits OR imports. Looking at ​taginfo:tags/natural=hill#chronology, I'd guess 30-40k of the instances are from bulk edits/imports (look for the sharp upticks in usage).
  • 440 distinct authors of version 1 instances
• Worldwide usage: Yep, see ​taginfo:tags/natural=hill#map
• Doesn't appear to be a "specialist" tag (AKA: I don't need to be a geologist)

BUT

It is indicating that there is a lack of consensus on how to tag natural=peak versus natural=hill. Specifically

[...] tagging has not reached a consensus [...]

As such, I'm unlikely to merge your patch at this time. I am perfectly willing to look at it again when there is consensus. Even if the consensus is "a hill has a peak that is >10k feet above the surrounding ground level" (I did not mistype that). Or "anything that has a peak that is <1k feet above surrounding ground level is a hill and anything that is >5k feet over surrounding ground level is a mountain; anything in between is indeterminate".

P.S.:
gaben did it for you, but in the future, can you add [PATCH] to the summary/title of any ticket where you have attached a patch? (see wiki:DevelopersGuide/PatchGuide for why)

[hhtznr]

Replying to taylor.smock:

As such, I'm unlikely to merge your patch at this time. I am perfectly willing to look at it again when there is consensus. Even if the consensus is "a hill has a peak that is >10k feet above the surrounding ground level" (I did not mistype that). Or "anything that has a peak that is <1k feet above surrounding ground level is a hill and anything that is >5k feet over surrounding ground level is a mountain; anything in between is indeterminate".

Thank you for providing the detailed explanation why you currently reject this patch. I understand your line of reasoning.

[taylor.smock]

No problem. I tried to give you some idea of what needs to happen before I can apply the patch. If you can get the community to figure out what qualifies as natural=peak versus what qualifies as natural=hill, I would be more than happy to apply the patch. Please note that I tend to wait 6+ months after a change to a wiki page before I view the definition of a tag as stable, absent a discussion on a mailing list. I would highly recommend discussing the difference (and how to define the difference) on the ​tagging mailing list.