<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
The discussion split up into<br>
1) mountain ranges (could possibly be tagged without areas)<br>
2) areas (fuzzy) which can not be substituted by nodes/ways<br>
I will continue with 1), but lets not forget about 2). Maybe we get
insights from 1) we can use in 2). <br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 29.12.20 um 04:20 schrieb Brian M.
Sperlongano:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx15zG7BsZCybeMr0epeJg0qDuWd-haJZ7rw0RnxMKXW_g@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>In light of the ongoing "how to tag a mountain range"
discussion, I created the following object which maps the
Green Mountains in Vermont, USA. As a flatlander, I had
substantial help from a local
Vermonter, who understood the topography and which peaks
should be included. It is modeled simply as a relation of all
the mountain peaks in the range:<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<a href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12102399"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/12102399</a>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I offer this as a proof of concept of one possible way to
map a mountain range, hopefully to help further the
discussion. I am not necessarily advocating for this scheme
or the specific tagging that I have on that object (and I'm
not planning to write a proposal around it), but I thought it
would be useful to demonstrate a concrete example that we
could all look at.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Thank you Brian! Perfect example for this discussion. <br>
<br>
My thoughts on this method:<br>
<ul>
<li>In my head, mountain ranges are areas and not a collection of
peaks. This follows the idea that even a mountain isn't just the
peak but the whole (sometimes fuzzy) 3d object from the
surrounding valleys to the top. But this doesn't say "mapping
mountain ranges as collection of elements that are definitely
inside, and then calculate the outline" is the best way to get
to those areas. I dont want to rule this idea out right now. <br>
</li>
<li>To better define the "outline" of a mountain range, we could
assign "inner/outer" roles to the elements. In your example of
the Green Mountains, I don't know if the southern end is "one
big fat" end, or if it has "two legs". Is Harriman Reservoir in
it or not? If we assign the roles, you could give Haystack
Mountain "outer", then I would say Harriman Reservoir is not
inside. If Haystack Mountain gets nothing, or an "inner" role,
we could draw an imaginary line from Stowe Montain to The Dome
which leads to "Harriman Reservoir is in the Green Mountains". <br>
</li>
<li>Are there some mountain Ranges with "holes" / inner rings? I
guess/hope no. Otherwise, we could get problems if someone adds
a peak "in" an existing mountain_range relation but does not
know about this relation. Because this would punch a hole. But
if we say, mountain ranges dont have holes, it could be assumed
the new peak is part of the range. Validators like osmose could
detect those lone peaks somehow to double check. <br>
</li>
<li>The relation is not limited to peaks only. It could contain
ridges and aretes, maybe valleys and mountain passes, or (if we
once map them) massifs / mountain-polygons. But I guess we
should keep it rather simple, so maybe lets dont do that. <br>
</li>
<li>As peaks have calculable (you need elevation data)
"priorities"
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topographic_prominence</a>) a
renderer could weigh them to find the best "label curve". There
is no need to draw an (unverifiable) label line. <br>
</li>
</ul>
Best Florian<br>
</body>
</html>