Hi Martin, 2011/11/8 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@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: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/H%C3%B6rnleLochenstein.jpg 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: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relations/Proposed/Region Michael
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
