[Tagging] Mountain Ranges

[Warin]

On 09/02/19 11:22, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Thanks for working on this. I had been meaning to reopen the proposal.
>
> No need to introduce a new key. natural=mountain_range is fine, and 
> has been in use.

For me the key 'natural' is not good. It has a common meaning that goes 
against the OSM definition.

Not all land forms are 'natural' by the common meaning of the word.
So I'd rather use a word that says what it is without any confusion - a 
land form.

>
> > To map:
> > - as a node - centred on the area
> > - a simple open way along hte
> spine of the range
>
> Yes, both of these are good. If a way is used it should follow the 
> natural=ridge ways.

Not all part of a range have ridges - some have plateaus.
> A natural=mountain_range will probably consist of several ridges which 
> meet at natural=saddle points.
>
> > a closed way on the area of the range or a relation
> > consisting of ways forming a closed area of the range.
>
> These will be quite hard to define. Do you go all the way down into 
> the valley or plains till the land is flat? Or only surround the 
> higher elevations?

Some have already been mapped that way. I don't know of the 
source/method of determination.
>
> I’d recommend sticking with a linear way or node.

If a node then some may want a relation - the node as the lable, and 
other nodes that are peaks of the range, ways that are ridges of the 
range .. and so on.
If a way some may want a relation - the ways as the spine, nodes as 
peaks .. and possibly some ways as side ridges ...

???
I don't know.

For me I'd just map the spine as a way.


> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 8:25 AM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com 
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>
>     There appear to be 2 competing tags for use with mountain ranges.
>     Neither have any wiki documentation!
>
>
>     A) place=region, region=mountain_range
>
>     Mostly relations with outer ways only.
>
>
>     B) natural=mountain_range
>
>     Again as relations - with outer ways and at least some with nodes
>     representing peaks within the mountain range.
>
>
>     ---------------------------------
>
>     So .. to combine them into one and standardise the format?
>
>     Introducing
>
>     C) landform=mountain_range
>
>
>     To map as a node - centred on the area, a simple open way along hte
>     spine of the range, a closed way on the area of the range or a
>     relation
>     consisting of ways forming a closed are of the range.
>
>
>     No entry of peaks, ridges etc as these will change with new
>     entries, and
>     can be forund by searching inside the area if the area is mapped.
>
>     -----------------
>
>     The new tag can run with the older tags so they will still exist
>     while
>     the new tag establishes itself.
>
>
>     Well, what do you think?
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190210/e3970106/attachment.html>