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

Markus selfishseahorse at gmail.com
Thu Jan 10 20:38:19 UTC 2019

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 14:11, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).

I must admit that i didn't think of that and i also didn't follow that
other discussion about bays. (I would like to follow all discussions,
but unfortunately i only have limited time ...) I don't want to add an
upper limit for mapping peninsulas as this were very arbitrary, but
i'm fine with adding a recommendation to map larger areas as nodes
because of these technical difficulties.

> 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

I wonder why the border to the rest of Europe is so zigzagged. I would
have drawn a straight line or rather mapped the Iberian Peninsula as a

More information about the Tagging mailing list