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

Markus selfishseahorse at gmail.com
Sat Jan 19 12:44:28 UTC 2019

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 00:26, Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de> wrote:
> [...] 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.

I think this problem is now solved by adding the recommendation that
natural=peninsula should only be used if the length of the non-water
part of the boundary isn't larger than three halves of the square root
of its area.

> 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:

I've never visited any of these capes and thus can't tell you if the
names only refer to a point or to a (fuzzy) area. But, as another
example, the Pointe de Pen-Hir [1], which is a headland forming a
coastal extreme point, refers to an area of about 0.3 km².

[1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/294001824#map=15/48.2569/-4.6225

More information about the Tagging mailing list