[Tagging] The showstoppers for mapping Scandinavian nature.

[Brian M. Sperlongano]

There is no need to draw the "border" of a mountain range -- just a
relation containing all the summits will do just fine.  There are
organizations (e.g.. International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation)
that have produced definitions and/or lists of what constitutes a summit.
With this collection of points, one might imagine that there are algorithms
for appropriate labeling location and size labeling.

We might also imagine that we could construct mountain systems (e.g. the
Appalachian Mountains, which encompass multiple, subordinate ranges) as a
relation containing each of the ranges within.

Even for a larger mountain range which might have several thousand peaks,
this is only a modest-sized object - consider that the boundary polygon of
Sydney, Australia contains 11,800 nodes.

On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 5:41 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 28. Dec 2020, at 11:10, Florian Kratochwil <florian at kratochwil.at>
> wrote:
> >
> > So, in my opinion, mountain ranges are verifiable, it is just difficult
> to verify because you have to look at many different sources, maybe even
> ask many people.
>
>
>
> yes, mountain ranges are verifiable, but their borders are also fuzzy, and
> regardless how many sources you look at, you won’t be able to draw a border
> with centimeter precision (OpenStreetMap’s precision given by the
> coordinate precision). I.e. mapping mountain ranges as areas is
> inappropriate and unsuitable.
>
> Cheers Martin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201228/317fe36d/attachment-0001.htm>