<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 28.12.20 um 06:22 schrieb Graeme
Fitzpatrick:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP4zaXpu4ONfF92eLN56q7achPcDsgz_AX9R3kAD=TUBaeQiig@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">But if you stop anywhere along it's length, point
to a mountain & ask a local, "What Range is that mountain
part of?", they'll all say the Great Dividing Range.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
You should ask: Is this mountain part of XY Range?. Some mountains
are in no mountain range. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP4zaXpu4ONfF92eLN56q7achPcDsgz_AX9R3kAD=TUBaeQiig@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've personally seen road signs that say you are crossing
the Great Dividing Range.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Lots of articles talk about & map it. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Don't these things all make it verifiable?</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I would add "elevation information" as a (in many cases) best
verifiable information for mountain ranges. I believe many mountain
ranges could be defined by a more or less clear (<500m) border to
where the flatland/hills/whatever begin. Maybe it is something
underground, like different geological zones as well which could
help in defining them. Maybe it is a significant change in landuse
(which also could derive from different underground conditions). <br>
<br>
So, in my opinion, mountain ranges are verifiable, it is just
difficult to verify because you have to look at many different
sources, maybe even ask many people. <br>
This works for many other natural-tags (valley, plain, massif, ...)
as well. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP4zaXpu4ONfF92eLN56q7achPcDsgz_AX9R3kAD=TUBaeQiig@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>& on the subject of maps, here's a beautifully fuzzy
one! :-) <a
href="https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Great_Dividing_Range"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Great_Dividing_Range</a></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
And here is a precise one:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Dividing_Range#/media/File:Topography_of_australia_great_dividing_range.jpg">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Dividing_Range#/media/File:Topography_of_australia_great_dividing_range.jpg</a><br>
<br>
And here is a precisely mapped OSM-mountain_range (missing
natural=mountain_range, but this is not the point here):
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2247685">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2247685</a><br>
The border-definition is described as the definition made by the
local alpine club, see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/de:Alpenvereinseinteilung%20der%20Ostalpen?uselang=de#/media/Datei:AVE_Ostalpen.png">https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/de:Alpenvereinseinteilung%20der%20Ostalpen?uselang=de#/media/Datei:AVE_Ostalpen.png</a><br>
<br>
I have no problem with starting to map a mountain range as super
fuzzy polygon and then start refining it. As long as it is not "as
precise as I can do" it should have a fixme=refine or something like
that. <br>
<br>
If those super long straight lines start making problems in editors
(I don't think they are now), editors could filter long straight
lines. JOSM already does this for lines which have no node in your
downloaded area. <br>
<br>
Best Florian<br>
</body>
</html>