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

[Markus]

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.

That's true.

> 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
> shortsighted.

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
indefinite=yes

> 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.