Talk:Inverted relief

Astronomy: Mars / Solar System Low‑importance

	Astronomy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Mars task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Solar System task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter#CTX .28camera.29|CTX]] The anchor (#CTX .28camera.29) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled

Article merged: See old talk-page here

Merge

Seems this article and inverted topography are about the same content and should be merged. Please comment at talk:inverted topography. Vsmith (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification

It sounds like the text is saying that we should expect to see a stream flowing in what is now an elevated channel on top of the inverted relief. But none of the photos really indicate a channel (unless I'm just not looking at Table Mountain (Tuolumne County, California) or the photos correctly).

What I suspect what's really going on is that the stream now flows in some other, more recently established channel, seeing as that's the way erosion leads it. If this is true, if there is no channel in the raised feature, the wording needs to be changed to say something more like "the material now occupying the channel is more resistant than the material that had been eroded from it, so the stream is diverted and establishes a new path where erosion allows."

I suppose I take exception to the wording implying that the channel is above the surrounding area. The surface where the channel had been is now above the surrounding area but the channel is not occupying the same space on the map anymore. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct. I modified part of the formation section to make this clearer, but couldn't find a way to work the information organically into the lede without suggesting that either 1. inversion always involves rivers, or 2. the river itself always does the inverting (it's actually much more common that the river itself is diverted far away or otherwise abandoned, then much slower wind erosion does the actual inverting). Feel free to have a crack yourself though. DanHobley (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]