Jump to content

Talk:Exposure (heights)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Section: Unclear definition

[edit]

Is this section really needed? Guide books , from my experience, make it clear where a path (I'm a walker) is exposed and I believe climbing guides are pretty specific. The article in fact gives a decent definition -- though of course what constitutes exposure is subjective. Rwood128 (talk) 14:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not a great title - but that's what the German Wiki article used. I've moved it to after the lede, changed it to "Definitions" and added a few specific examples of differing definitions to show the variation. Over time we may be able to find better examples. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I need to think about this. As walker I think of exposure in far simpler terms and therefore felt that this section was redundant. Maybe I'll add something to clarify the difference.
The use of sic reveals that you are apparently quoting. However there are no quotation marks -- also, it looks like you have the wrong citation for that example. Rwood128 (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was clear enough that the definitions are taken directly from the sources they are referenced to. But, if not, happy to add quotation marks.
I've corrected the link. Strange, the wording was correct, but the link wasn't! --Bermicourt (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]