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

Markus selfishseahorse at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 23:00:29 UTC 2019

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 22:41, Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de> wrote:
> On Friday 18 January 2019, Markus wrote:
> > [...]particularly the
> > distinction from natural=cape. natural=peninsula now includes a
> > minimal area limit of 1 km².
> That is a very bad idea on two accounts:
> * it would to my knowledge be a first in the whole OSM tagging system
> that defines a tag through an arbitrary numerical limit.  And a
> pointless limit i would like to add because any data user who wants to
> filter for peninsulas larger than one square kilometer could do so just
> as well (or with as much difficulty) as the mapper.
> * it would dilute the meaning of natural=cape from its current very
> narrow meaning to one of "what natural=cape currently means plus small
> peninsulas" which would not only be counterproductive for data quality,
> it would also be completely counter-intuitive for the mapper (tagging a
> cape and a 0.9 km^2 peninsula the same but tagging a 0.9 km^2 peninsula
> and a 1.1 km^2 peninsula differently)

An arbitrary and absolute limit is not ideal and i actually don't like
it very much, but the only other solution i see is to abandon
natural=cape and map all
points/capes/headlands/promontories/peninsulas with one single tag,
whether it be natural=peninsula or another tag. Maybe that's even the
better solution.

By the way, i measured a few dozen of
points/capes/headlands/peninsulas of Brittany. Most either have an
area of about 0.1–0.5 km² (they are usually called pointes 'points')
or > 1.5 km² (called capes 'capes' or presqu'îles 'peninsulas'), so
the 1 km² limit doesn't seem to be that bad, but could also be halved.

More information about the Tagging mailing list