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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 9. Jan. 2019 um 10:36 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org
>:

> I fear that people will otherwise with great diligence and fun tag
> things like the "Iberian Peninsula" which will not be of any use and
> just lead to more relation clutter. (Cf. discussion about bays.)





while I would not advocate either for modelling the Iberian Peninsula with
our current system (e.g. as multipolygon), I would like to express dissent
on the motion it "would not be of any use". IMHO it clearly would be
desirable to be able to map big "objects" like this in a smart way. WM has
WP records for 120 languages for the Iberian Peninsula [1], there will be
people interested in this, no? The only reasons I see for approving "small"
peninsulas" but not big ones, are of technical nature (limitations of what
we can model, and how expensive it is).

On a sidenote: the Iberian Peninsula is already mapped in OSM as a
relation, and it is in Version 848 ;-)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3870917

Cheers,
Martin




[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190109/a395852c/attachment.html>