There are many large areas covered in ice in the world, like in Yukon-Alaska and Patagonia. They are often referred as icefield or "ice field", but I don't know if one form is better that the other. I feel like "ice field" is more generic, it can be used for any area covered in ice, man made or not. For example, it is of common use for sailors when describing large areas of the sea surface covered in ice. Instead, icefield seem to me to be specific to the large ice masses that cover one or multiple valleys and mountain massifs.
Which form should I use when referring to large ice fields like the North Patagonian Ice Field in this image?
The answer on the question "When to use a hyphen to coin a new word and when to omit a hyphen?", suggest to keep the single word version if it is of common use, which is the case for icefield because:
- In a google search "Icefield" return about 5 times more results than "Ice field". Despite that in google scholar the difference is much narrower (20k vs 16k), it is still more common than "ice field".
- The Wikipedia page for Ice field consider Icefield as a valid spelling for the same thing. This issue is also mention in the Wikipedia talk page for that article, but with no clear answer or argumentation.
- Google Ngram, show that icefield is of common usage, becoming even more common than "ice field" in the later decades. Despite that "ice field" can be used other contexts too.

All the above suggest that I should use the single word "icefield". However, that world doesn't exist in the Cambridge Dictionary, and in the Oxford Dictionary (or this version) redirects to "ice field". Something that I understand as an statement on what is the right spelling.
So, should I follow what the dictionaries suggest? Or, should I follow the common use rule recommended in "When to use a hyphen to coin a new word and when to omit a hyphen?"