[Tagging] Mountain Ranges

Joseph Eisenberg joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Sun Feb 10 03:28:13 UTC 2019


> Not all land forms are 'natural' by the common meaning of the word.

Ok, but all mountain ranges are certainly natural, by any sense of the word.

If you would like to change natural=peak, =saddle, =ridge, =cliff etc to a
new “landform” key, that should be a separate proposal which includes all
of the landforms. It doesn’t make sense to invent a new key with only one
value.

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

I agree, and I think this should be the recommendation in the proposal.
While some people will choose to use the tag with other geometries, the
central ridge of a mountain range is sufficient to define the extent of the
name, and it is verifiable.

Mountain massifs without a main ridge, such as some isolated volcanic
ranges, should just be mapped as a node for now.

> 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.

A complex relation that includes nodes and closed ways isn’t going to be
useful. I do t know of any tools that are able to make sense of such a
thing.

If you want to show that certain peaks and saddle is part of a mountain
range, the main way should connect them.

And if there are smaller side ridges, they can also be selected as part of
the mountain range as long as they share one node with the
natural=mountain_range way
On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 8:14 AM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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> 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
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/e427ea90/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list