[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=ridge

Michael Krämer ohrosm at googlemail.com
Tue Nov 8 16:32:32 GMT 2011

Hi Martin,

2011/11/8 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>

> Yes, that's unambigous, but what about this?
Thanks, that's what I tried .

> 1
> http://www.rainerundclaudia.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/20090419-Mit-Julia-u.-Alex-am-Karlsruher-Grat-0232.jpg
> 2
> http://alpinestock.com/grat_sareiserjoch_malbun_liechtenstein_sjpg1883.jpg
I would consider both a ridge. But honestly my personal definition would be
to the German "Grat"...:-) To give a negative example, here something I
would not consider a ridge but either cliff or rock:

More seriously:
I would suggest to use "ridge" for the distinct feature. A could extend
(more or less) horizontally like the image I've referenced before. There I
would claim that a ridge at maximum extends from one peak to another. There
are also ridges more "vertically" oriented and separating the slopes of a
mountain. So basically a ridge is a feature of one or two mountains only.

I think we all agree, that a continental divide or the "Alpenhauptkamm" are
not ridges. They these large scale features will very likely contain many
ridges but also other features. This is probably like the distiction
between "cliff" and "coast". Mapping mountain ranges IMO is a different
story, more related to mapping large features (e.g. valleys like the Great
Rift Valley). To my point of view this is already adequatly covered in the
proposal. Also I just came across the region proposal:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20111108/35378830/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list