<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 19/01/19 10:22, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP4zaXo4qEKTZ51=GrNE_msdzoqek_TXa_OAcAhhmvdyUEGdFQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 09:09, Markus <<a
href="mailto:selfishseahorse@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">selfishseahorse@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">It certainly can be
phrased better (this isn't my strong point), but i<br>
wanted to make it clear that a peninsula can also be part of
a bigger<br>
peninsula.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>OK, how about <span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">"A
natural=cape can be part of a </span><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">natural</span><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">=peninsula, a </span><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">natural</span><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">=peninsula can be part of a
larger </span><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">natural</span><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">=peninsula, </span><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">but a </span><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">natural</span><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">=peninsula</span><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"> cannot be part of a </span><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">natural=cape</span><span
style="color:rgb(80,0,80)">"?</span></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><br>
</span></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I've updated the proposal
accordingly.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Good, thanks, but that also raises an awkward (&
unanswerable?) question about "<span
style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">Please do
not map very large peninsulas like subcontinents as
multipolygons as they strain the servers too much and are
hard to maintain"?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">How
big is "too much strain" & who can say it's straining
too much?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">Is
Cape York Peninsula OK, but Italy too big?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">How
can anybody tell?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">BTW
I'm in no way complaining or objecting to the idea (I'll
be voting for it when it get's there!), it's just the
question of the technical limitations that may be
involved?</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"><br>
</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
A found a guide somewhere that said 300 was a good maximum number of
members for a multipolygon. <br>
The northern Blue Mountains tree relation was over 600 and climbing.
I thought that was a bit high and might need attention, particularly
as I was adding more members. <br>
I split it into 4 IIRC .. and go them all under 200 members each. <br>
<br>
I have not looked as yet at the other large tree relations that I
have in the past edited. In the 'to do list'. <br>
</body>
</html>