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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 19 January 2019, Markus wrote:
>
> 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.

As i have said natural=cape has a well defined and consistently applied 
meaning in OSM so far.  Unless you want to destroy that you should aim 
at defining natural=peninsula in a way does not mess with definition of 
natural=cape.  I see no problem with that.  The problem i see is - as 
previously mentioned - defining natural=peninsula in a way that makes 
it mean something more specific than 'some named land area at the 
coast'.  But that problem is completely unrelated to natural=cape.

> 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.

Frankly i don't even remotely follow your argument here.  Maybe it would 
help if you could tell me how to determine the area of the capes i 
previously used as examples:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/32532727
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2510985983
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2098928265
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4727612495
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2696775247

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/