[Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - natural=ridge

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Nov 8 17:45:52 GMT 2011


2011/11/8 Michael Krämer <ohrosm at googlemail.com>:
> 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:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/H%C3%B6rnleLochenstein.jpg


+1, it's all about age ;-), I'd tag the steep parts natural=cliff.


> More seriously:
> I would suggest to use "ridge" for the distinct feature. ... So basically a ridge is a feature of one or two mountains only.


not sure, from what I read a "ridge" can probably span between several
mountains (or hills). it can also form a "crest"? As you wrote, you
are thinking about a de:"Grat" for which I agree it does not extend
over the summit of a mountain (while a "Kamm" will, it consists of
several "Grat").


> 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.


well, "Haupt"kamm (main .....) does also imply sub-objects. We could
make relations type=route, route=ridge (or mountain_ridge or
mountain_range,....) containing each other.

With relations we could also map similar geographic features like
gorges without additional geometry: we put the adjacent cliffs in a
relation, e.g. type=area, and tag the relation with natural=gorge,
name=xy so you'd know that the feature is between these ways.

cheers,
Martin



More information about the Tagging mailing list