Talk:Tag:natural=ridge
Proposal : Rendering
- Bateast : Ridges are based element to understand a map in mountains. Also shading based on SRTM gives some good indication, it is by far not precise enough. At high scales (few hundreds meters by centimeters), cliff must be shown as line so that one can understand precisely the natural star shaped reliefs he is finding in the mountains.
Following my proposal for tag:arete rendering, that are actually ridges, I think that ridges must be shown as continues lines with empty lozenges (or even just dashes) on both sides, to present a downway on both sides
That would gives something like :
/ / / / / ------------------ \ \ \ \ \
- possibly, rendering could be borrowed from embankment=yes. RicoZ (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- I like the rendering proposal. I would also apply the following rule:
/ / / / /
to the peak UP ------------------ DOWN to the saddle point or to the bottom (near the confluence of two rivers, streams or valleys)
\ \ \ \ \
- And in the editor the arrows would point like this:
UP <------------------ DOWN
- The former would be a relative approach. The absolute approach would have the most prominent peak up and the child down:
/ / / / /
to the most prominent peak UP ------------------ DOWN to the child peak
\ \ \ \ \
- What do you think? --Iagocasabiell (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Types of ridge
Seems to me that ridge is a pretty generic term. Even considering mountain ridges and craters there is a wide variety of geometry and material. Maybe those could be amended with
- ridge_width
- ridge_angle
RicoZ (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Why breaking them into shorter ways?
Curious for the rationale for the recent edit. Of course we should avoid excessively large objects in OSM (and there is a maximum limit of nodes for a way iirc) but that is common OSM sense and would not require an extra mention in the documentation? RicoZ (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've read this recommendation for waterways and highways somewhere in the wiki, though I am now unable to find the page. When a way is 100 km long or contains >1000 nodes it can be difficult to download and edit. While it should be common knowledge to experienced mapppers, I don't think it's something I would have thought of as a new mapper.
- I thought it needed to be mentioned because there are several places in South America where the Continental Divide has been mapped as a natural=ridge. While the divide is mostly ridges, there are some places where it crosses flat plateaus and saddles where it's not reasonable to say that there is one ridge that continues through both sides. Also some other mountain ranges have been mapped as natural=ridge, probably because the words "Sierra" (Spanish) and "Serra" (Portuguese) can refer to mountain ranges or ridges, but often these mountain ranges will consist of several separate ridge lines. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
linear hill meaning
The box description says "continuous elevated crest or linear hill" but the rest of the page talks about a crest only. Also, the image makes it look very sharp, like an arete? It's not clear to me what's meant by linear hill but I guess it's a hint that the edge can be a bit rounder than might be guessed for crest? TrekClimbing (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think so, i've been tagging with natural=ridge many river basin limits, and they may be very round. As long as you can throw some water and see what direction it flows into it is verifiable by anyone that can resurvey it. The very spiky crests (acute angle) should be tagged natural=arete. As for the image in the renderer being too sharp, that shouldn't bother you, you must not map for the render, as it may be changed in the future (there are specific pages for it).--Iagocasabiell (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. By image, I meant the one in the box on the wiki page. TrekClimbing (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)