On Sun, 2026-07-12 at 20:43 +0300, Mehmet Gürevin wrote: > Hi Holger, > > Thanks for your response. > > I agree that Turkey is a special case geographically. A large majority of its > landmass is indeed located in Asia, so I understand why it was placed there. > > My concern is not primarily whether Turkey should be considered European or > Asian, but rather the consistency of the grouping presented by the installer. > > For example, Cyprus is listed under Europe even though it is geographically > located entirely in Asia, and Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are also > grouped under Europe despite their similarly ambiguous or transcontinental > status. > > Given these existing classifications, Turkey appears to be treated > differently from other countries in the same region. > > If the intention is to group countries by physical geography,
...then we should use a 6-continent model with Eurasia instead of Europe and Asia. (semi-serious) > then several existing entries might deserve reconsideration. If the intention > is instead to follow political, cultural, or user-expectation criteria, then > placing Turkey under Europe would also be consistent with the surrounding > entries. > > So my suggestion is less about Turkey itself, and more about applying the > same rationale consistently across all borderline cases. [...] I don't think it's possible to achieve a consistent and understandable rule that maps each country to exactly one continent. It seems this might best be resolved by changing to a many-to-many mapping. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings If the facts do not conform to your theory, they must be disposed of.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
