[Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Markus selfishseahorse at gmail.com
Sat Feb 2 18:31:10 UTC 2019


I'm resending/forwarding the following email to the tagging list,
because i forgot to reply to all.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Markus <selfishseahorse at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 17:56
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula
(Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)
To: David Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com>


On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:49, Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I really don't see the need to include this in your proposal. I can't imagine anybody wanting to tag the French Riviera or the West Coast of the U.S. as a peninsula. These places cannot possibly be identified as a peninsula using the criteria you specified or using any criteria really. My advice is to remove that entire sentence from the proposal. It will only confuse the issue.

You are right, my examples are bad and the geometrical limit (length
of the non-water part of the boundary ≤ 3/2 square root of its area)
is confusing. Nevertheless, i'm hesitant to remove the geometrical
limit as others have raised the concern that some people might tag any
area at a coast as peninsula (similar to the natural=bay examples).

Regards

Markus



More information about the Tagging mailing list