|
If you live anywhere near a mountain then it is the most significant thing around. In Seattle, Mount Rainier is really impressive. They are big things and yet the OSM representation of them seems a bit lame. Most, the Eiger for example, are simple a single node with an elevation. Is there a better way of doing this? |
|
Yes. If you combine the OSM vector data with a digital elevation model then you can get a much better representation of terrain. There are many maps that use this method e.g. OpenCycleMap, OpenPisteMap, FreeMap, e.t.c. 4
Note the keyword is "combine with" and not "import into". OSM itself is not a good fit for elevation data (appart from POIs), so we like to keep elevation data in separate databases/projects.
(01 Feb '12, 09:34)
Vincent de P... ♦
|
|
There seem to be more people concerned about mapping mountains. Maybe the openstreetmap wiki is a good place to join these activities and improve the state of the art, see Proposed features/Mountains. There's also natural=fell, which while not suitable for Mt Rainier, also has a fair bit of use.
(06 Feb '12, 11:02)
SomeoneElse ♦
|
|
In general, OSM does not carry elevation data. There are already good sources for elevation data (e.g. the SRTM data), and obtaining better data from GPS or similar sources is very difficult, so the general consensus is that there is no point in putting elevation data into OSM (except for certain distinguished points, see Key:ele). So you do not input the extent of a mountain (which is not really well-defined anyway). If you want a map which shows the extent of a mountain, you create a contour map by combining OSM data with elevation data - this will then show the mountain with its contours. |
|
It currently sucks, you are right. Some related info here. I see that people in Austria are using Massifs and Ranges. They are not yet really well displayed on the map. I.e. I'd like to see the mountains marked as Rax and Schneeberg, not as countless peaks and other smaller elements. |
