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

A 'neck' is not a hill, mountain or a ridge. It is more or less level along its length, lacks the sharpness of a ridge and does not come to a peak. A 'promontory' might do for a 'point' .. would have to check definitions to say for certain.  On 19/01/19 16:15, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: Someone

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

Side discussion: On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 6:31 AM Paul Allen wrote: > One could argue that place=island should be natural=island. > And then we go into the discussion that not all islands are natural, like the artificial islands in Dubai. Then again, not all things currently tagged natural=water

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

Someone recently suggested using natural=promontory for named points and promontories in land which do not qualify as a peak, eg the sharp end of a ridge. On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 12:15 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 13:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> There

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

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 13:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > There are 'point's and 'necks' that are completely inland too. So cape and > peninsula do not fit these. > No, because capes & peninsulas are places going out into the sea / lakes :-) Inland ones (if I'm thinking of the right t

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

On 19/01/19 12:40, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 10:43, Kevin Kenny > wrote: On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:21 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick > Smaller features, such as ... > could all also be mapped as =cape We don't HAVE to have a tag fo

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

On 19/01/19 10:22, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 09:09, Markus > wrote: It certainly can be phrased better (this isn't my strong point), but i wanted to make it clear that a peninsula can also be part of a bigger peninsula. OK,

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

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 10:43, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:21 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick > > Smaller features, such as ... > > could all also be mapped as =cape > > We don't HAVE to have a tag for every > word in the English language! Sorry, Kevin, but at no time did I suggest that

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

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 10:42, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > “simply map them by what they're called Cape Agulhas is a =cape, Cape York > Peninsula is a =peninsula.” > > That only works in English (and closely-related languages). > But isn't OSM supposed to work in English (& British English at that)

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

“simply map them by what they're called Cape Agulhas is a =cape, Cape York Peninsula is a =peninsula.” That only works in English (and closely-related languages). This would also lead to multiple tags like natural=headland, natural=point etc for the same feature; not helpful for database users an

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

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:21 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 09:26, Christoph Hormann wrote: >> On Saturday 19 January 2019, Markus wrote: >> > By the way, i measured a few dozen of >> > points/capes/headlands/peninsulas of Brittany. Most either have an >> > area of about 0.

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

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 09:26, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Saturday 19 January 2019, Markus wrote: > > > 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 >

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

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 natu

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

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 09:09, Markus wrote: > It certainly can be phrased better (this isn't my strong point), but i > wanted to make it clear that a peninsula can also be part of a bigger > peninsula. > OK, how about "A natural=cape can be part of a natural=peninsula, a natural=peninsula can be

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

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 22:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > Both natural=cape and natural=peninsula can be part of a natural=peninsula, > comes out a bit awkwardly. Maybe just leave it as "A n=c can be part of a > n=p", but a n=p cannot be part of a n=c"? It certainly can be phrased better (th

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

On Friday 18 January 2019, Paul Allen wrote: > > * it would to my knowledge be a first in the whole OSM tagging > > system that defines a tag through an arbitrary numerical limit. > > place=islet and place=island. Islets are smaller than 1 km², islands > are larger than 1 km². I stand corrected.

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

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 22:41, Christoph Hormann 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 knowl

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

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 21:49, Kevin Kenny 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 think

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

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 21:41, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > * it would to my knowledge be a first in the whole OSM tagging system > that defines a tag through an arbitrary numerical limit. place=islet and place=island. Islets are smaller than 1 km², islands are larger than 1 km². place=hamlet,

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

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 05:49, Markus wrote: > I've updated the proposal [1], > Good work, Markus A couple of thoughts ... Both natural=cape and natural=peninsula can be part of a natural=peninsula , comes out a bit awkwardly. Maybe just leave it as "A n=c can be part of a n=p", but a n=p cann

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

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 thro

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

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 2:49 PM Markus wrote: > Regarding areas with fuzzy boundaries, i could imagine a new kind of > relation that contains one multipolygon relation for the part of area > that certainly belongs to the area feature ('minimal area') and one > multipolygon relation for the fuzzy a

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

Hello everyone Thanks a lot for all your suggestions, philosophical thoughts and your patience. :-) I've updated the proposal [1], particularly the distinction from natural=cape. natural=peninsula now includes a minimal area limit of 1 km². I've also added a recommendation that the length of the

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 5:54 AM Tobias Wrede wrote: > > So I wonder whether we should map all trial x road junctions as > > trailheads or limit them to places with more facilities (just to be > > clear, locally, in Flanders). I don't know. > > I see your point. I had forgotten about node networks.

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Am 18.01.2019 um 09:48 schrieb Marc Gemis: So limiting it to named trails would be an option, however, the tourist agencies seem to replace all such named walks with walking node networks, so "trails" are now everywhere. This means that you can start almost anywhere on a signposted walk. Just tak

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Thanks Tobias and Graeme before for your views on trails. I first try to understand what a trail/trailhead is in the USA and Australia, before deciding on how to apply it locally. Of course, it would be different in Europe, especially in a small country like Belgium with not a lot of open space.

Re: [Tagging] Trailhead tagging

Am 17.01.2019 um 08:32 schrieb Marc Gemis: A trailhead is the start of a trail, but I haven't seen the definition of a trail yet. An American trail seems like a long distance walking route in the wilderness. It's probably the same in Australia, Is that interpretation correct ? Is that a requirem