[Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)
selfishseahorse at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 22:39:12 UTC 2019
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 21:49, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> Rather than a new relation type, I think it would be simpler to tag
> the indefinite part of the boundary of whatever area feature with a
> key like "indefinite=yes". [...]
This is a sensible solution and it's even simpler than what i was thinking of.
> If we try to fix "maximal" and "minimal" area, we'll simply run into
> more haggling- because the maximum and minimum do not have bright-line
> definitions, any more than the indefinite line does.
> Try as we might to make them go away, there are objects, observable
> and named in the real world, that are areas, part of whose boundaries
> are indefinite. Saying that such things can be only point features is
You are right. I've updated the proposal again. It now recommends to
draw the connection to the mainland as a straight line and tag it
> I support the 'peninsula' proposal, with the caveat that the Wiki
> should indicate that large (we need guidance on just how large)
> peninsulas should not yet be mapped, because of the technical problems
> in enormous relations.
I forgot to mention this in the proposal. I've done it now.
More information about the Tagging