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

[Markus]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 21:49, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
>
> We deal with indefinite objects more often than some people are
> comfortable with. (I've mentioned previously that my state has such
> things as county lines that are in part unsurveyed!)
>
> 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". An indefinite boundary will normally have
> no reason to have tags of its own other than this one - because it
> would need to be a 'real' feature in order to have most of them be
> meaningful. It would ordinarily be there only to close a multipolygon
> topologically, and the tags of the multipolygon of which it's an inner
> or outer way would ordinarily be the only other information pertaining
> to it.
>
> If we try to fix "maximal" and "minimal" area, we'll simply run into
> more haggling- because the maximum and minimum do not have bright-line
> definitions, any more than the indefinite line does. We'll have
> interminable arguments over what land might and might not be
> considered part of a peninsula. I'd like to nip that in the bud by
> simply declaring that any choice is arbitrary, and that the drawing of
> an arbitrary boundary of an area feature should be informed in part by
> what the locals think. Is Wareham, Massachusetts on Cape Cod? I have
> no idea, but I bet that the locals have a rough consensus - and if
> they don't, that they'd at least be unsurprised if a mapper were to
> choose the Cape Cod Canal or the Plymouth County line as the cutoff
> with an 'indefinite' indication.
>
> Simply having the tagging allow for an 'indefinite line', I think,
> could be a near-universal solution to the fact that bays, peninsulas,
> channels, isthmuses, lakes with broad inlets/outlets, rivers with
> broad mouths, administrative regions with unsurveyed boundaries,
> mountain ranges,  etc. all are area features that have a distinct
> shape, except for the fact that part of their margin may be
> indefinite.
>
> Try as we might to make them go away, there are objects, observable
> and named in the real world, that are areas, part of whose boundaries
> are indefinite. Saying that such things can be only point features is
> shortsighted.

The only imperfection of indefinite=yes tagged only on the way that
connects the peninsula to the mainland is that this doesn't make it
explicit that part of the coastline – while not fuzzy by itself –
might or might not be part of the peninsula. (For example, part of the
coastline between – or even beyond – these two point [^1][^2] might or
might not belong the Presqu'île de Crozon [^3].)

Tagging the relation member roles for example outer:indefinite were
less imperfect, but still imperfect – like my previous idea with the
minimal and maximal area. Besides, it were incompatible with the
current type=multipolygon specification.

Another solution would be to admit that peninsulas – as well as bays,
channels etc. – inherently have fuzzy borders and that therefore
tagging the fuzzy borders differently is unnecessary.

[^1]: 
[^2]: 
[^3]: 

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 18:46, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> Leave the geometrical limit, that's up to you. However, I doubt anybody 
> deciding about whether to use this tag would bother doing the math necessary 
> to compute lengths using the 3/2 * sq rt of the area formula but, IMO, 
> anybody who would map the West Coast of the United States as a peninsula is 
> an outlier, and makes up only a tiny percentage of mappers. Anybody who's 
> read through your descriptive text should be able to come to the appropriate 
> conclusion.

I've removed the whole paragraph because i couldn't find any area at a
coast that could be mistagged as natural=peninsula. For the unlikely
case that someone uses natural=peninsula for coastal areas
nevertheless, i trust common sense that mappers will find a way to
solve this in discussions or retagging.

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

I'm resending/forwarding the following email to the tagging list,
because i forgot to reply to all.

-- Forwarded message -
From: Markus 
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 17:56
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula
(Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)
To: David Swarthout 


On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:49, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> I really don't see the need to include this in your proposal. I can't imagine 
> anybody wanting to tag the French Riviera or the West Coast of the U.S. as a 
> peninsula. These places cannot possibly be identified as a peninsula using 
> the criteria you specified or using any criteria really. My advice is to 
> remove that entire sentence from the proposal. It will only confuse the issue.

You are right, my examples are bad and the geometrical limit (length
of the non-water part of the boundary ≤ 3/2 square root of its area)
is confusing. Nevertheless, i'm hesitant to remove the geometrical
limit as others have raised the concern that some people might tag any
area at a coast as peninsula (similar to the natural=bay examples).

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

Hi Dave,

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 00:33, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> I like the proposal, Markus, but am confused by this statement:
>
> natural=peninsula is not intended for tagging coastal areas or coastal strips.
>
> What does it mean? Can you word it differently perhaps?

I wasn't able to reword it, but i've added some examples of what i
mean with coastal areas or coastal strips:

French Riviera 
Costa Smeralda 
Costa Blanca 
West Coast 
Riviera Maya 
Skeleton Coast 

The intention of this statement is to prevent natural=peninsula from
being used for areas that go beyond 'nearly surrounded by water'
(similar to these natural=bay examples:
).

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Dave Swarthout]

I like the proposal, Markus, but am confused by this statement:

natural=peninsula is not intended for tagging coastal areas or coastal
strips.

What does it mean? Can you word it differently perhaps?

Thanks for your efforts on this proposal.

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 12:10 AM Markus  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> Are there still any objections to or comments on this proposal?
> Otherwise, i'd like to start voting in two weeks (if possible together
> with the related proposal natural=isthmus).
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Dpeninsula
>
> Thank you all for your suggestions for improvement!
>
> Regards
>
> Markus
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

Hello,

Are there still any objections to or comments on this proposal?
Otherwise, i'd like to start voting in two weeks (if possible together
with the related proposal natural=isthmus).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Dpeninsula

Thank you all for your suggestions for improvement!

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 23:52, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
> "Both the cape & the peninsula can sometimes share the same name eg "Cape York
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2138519757#map=9/-10.6415/142.5873 is the 
> extreme tip of Cape York Peninsula
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_York_Peninsula#/media/File:A2015_Cape_York_Peninsula_map.svg;?

Good idea, thanks! I've added it to the proposal page.

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2019 at 04:45, Markus  wrote:

> I tried to improve the differentiation and the illustration.
>

Looks good Markus!

A thought.

After "Note that 'cape' sometimes refers to a coastal extreme point, i.e.
natural =cape
, (e.g. Cape York
) and
sometimes to a peninsula, i.e. natural
=peninsula
 (e.g. Cape Cod
)."

Would it be worth while mentioning:

"Both the cape & the peninsula can sometimes share the same name eg "Cape
York
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2138519757#map=9/-10.6415/142.5873 is
the extreme tip of Cape York Peninsula
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_York_Peninsula#/media/File:A2015_Cape_York_Peninsula_map.svg
"?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 00:13, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
> That looks better though this might still be read as there being
> necessarily a 1:1 relationship between a natural=cape and a
> natural=peninsula (and your illustration therefore showing Pointe des
> Espagnols but not Pointe des Capucins).

Thanks for your feedback!

I tried to improve the differentiation and the illustration.

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

When I look at the area, it turns out that Pointe des Espagnols is the
extreme tip of the Roscanvel Peninsula, which itself comes off the Crozon
Peninsula eg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Iroise_sea_map-en.svg

If we add say Pointe des Capucins & Point de Cornouaille, it would all be a
perfect example of the
" > OK, how about "A natural=cape can be part of a natural=peninsula, a
natural=peninsula can be part of a larger natural=peninsula, but a
natural=peninsula cannot be part of a natural=cape"?

Or: 'A natural=cape can be part of a natural=peninsula, but a
natural=peninsula cannot be part of a natural=cape. However, a
natural=peninsula can be part of a larger natural=peninsula.'?"
description!

Thanks

Graeme


On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 at 09:13, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> this might still be read as there being
> necessarily a 1:1 relationship between a natural=cape and a
> natural=peninsula (and your illustration therefore showing Pointe des
> Espagnols but not Pointe des Capucins).
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 21 January 2019, Markus wrote:
>
> I've improved the differentiation from natural=cape and abandoned the
> minimal area requirement of 1 km². Please tell me if it makes sense
> now.

That looks better though this might still be read as there being 
necessarily a 1:1 relationship between a natural=cape and a 
natural=peninsula (and your illustration therefore showing Pointe des 
Espagnols but not Pointe des Capucins).

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 23:00, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
> > A piece of land that projects into a body of water.
>
> Sounds like a peninsula to me.

Nearly the same definition is used for natural=cape: 'A piece of
elevated land sticking out into the sea or large lake.' This is the
reason why i got confused.

I've improved the differentiation from natural=cape and abandoned the
minimal area requirement of 1 km². Please tell me if it makes sense
now.

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 at 07:57, Markus  wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 00:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
> >
> > OK, how about "A natural=cape can be part of a natural=peninsula, a
> natural=peninsula can be part of a larger natural=peninsula, but a
> natural=peninsula cannot be part of a natural=cape"?
>
> Or: 'A natural=cape can be part of a natural=peninsula, but a
> natural=peninsula cannot be part of a natural=cape. However, a
> natural=peninsula can be part of a larger natural=peninsula.'?
>

Yep, that also works.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2019 at 06:47, Markus  wrote:

>
> The Southport Spit isn't an isthmus.


Of course it isn't! I knew that so I'll blame temporary brain-fade!


> By the way, natural=isthmus already exists [3]; it
> just lacks a proposal.


Yes, I meant that the page doesn't exist

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 19 January 2019, Markus wrote:
> > And how do i as a mapper practically determine the area of Pointe
> > de Pen-Hir to be about 0.3 km^2?
>
> By mapping the area the name Pointe de Pen-Hir refers to as area:
>
> https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/way/4305300517#map=15/48.26
>07/-4.6146

And how can a mapper practically determine this geometry?

It seems to me that you are conjuring a peninsula here and simply apply 
the name of the cape to the peninsula without a basis for making that 
connection.

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 19 January 2019, Markus wrote:
> >
> > I don't know what you understand 'headland' to mean here.
>
> A piece of land that projects into a body of water.

Sounds like a peninsula to me.

In case that is still unclear:

A natural=cape feature is sometimes located on a peninsula - but it does 
not have to be.  And there can be multiple natural=cape on the same 
peninsula - famous example are Cape Point and Cape of Good Hope on Cape 
Peninsula.  And there are plenty of capes located nowhere near what you 
might classify a peninsula (several of my original samples are such 
cases).

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 00:23, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
> OK, how about "A natural=cape can be part of a natural=peninsula, a 
> natural=peninsula can be part of a larger natural=peninsula, but a 
> natural=peninsula cannot be part of a natural=cape"?

Or: 'A natural=cape can be part of a natural=peninsula, but a
natural=peninsula cannot be part of a natural=cape. However, a
natural=peninsula can be part of a larger natural=peninsula.'?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 04:03, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A found a guide somewhere that said 300 was a good maximum number of members 
> for a multipolygon.

Found it here: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation#Size and
mentioned it in the proposal.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 14:20, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
> On Saturday 19 January 2019, Markus wrote:
> >
> > If natural=cape doesn't mean a headland forming a coastal extreme
> > point, then i fail to understand what natural=cape does mean. Does it
> > only mean the extreme point of a headland? Are there really names
> > that only refer to a point? Isn't it rather a fuzzy area that the
> > name refers to?
>
> I don't know what you understand 'headland' to mean here.

A piece of land that projects into a body of water.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 14:16, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
> And how do i as a mapper practically determine the area of Pointe de
> Pen-Hir to be about 0.3 km^2?

By mapping the area the name Pointe de Pen-Hir refers to as area:

https://master.apis.dev.openstreetmap.org/way/4305300517#map=15/48.2607/-4.6146

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 01:21, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
> Southport Spit https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-27.9567/153.4276
> could all also be mapped as =cape (although the Spit should possibly be an 
> =isthmus? {which doesn't actually exist yet!}))

The Southport Spit isn't an isthmus. An isthmus is a narrow strip of
land connecting two larger land masses, [1] see for example L'Isthme
de Penthièvre [2]. By the way, natural=isthmus already exists [3]; it
just lacks a proposal. But it's on my (fairly long) to-do list.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isthmus
[2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9213792#map=14/47.5451/-3.1312
[3]: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=isthmus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 19 January 2019, Markus wrote:
>
> If natural=cape doesn't mean a headland forming a coastal extreme
> point, then i fail to understand what natural=cape does mean. Does it
> only mean the extreme point of a headland? Are there really names
> that only refer to a point? Isn't it rather a fuzzy area that the
> name refers to?

I don't know what you understand 'headland' to mean here.  

The current meaning of natural=cape i described in a previous mail as:

> * seen from water: landmark at the coast to circumnavigate
> * seen from land: coastal extreme point on land in a certain
> direction

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Christoph Hormann]

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

And how do i as a mapper practically determine the area of Pointe de 
Pen-Hir to be about 0.3 km^2?

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 00:26, Christoph Hormann  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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 00:07, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
> In other words:  If you want natural=cape and natural=peninsula to be
> synonyms for natural=cape_or_peninsula and don't mind flushing >11k
> existing natural=cape features with a well defined meaning which are
> not peninsulas down the drain such a limit could help accomplishing
> that.

If natural=cape doesn't mean a headland forming a coastal extreme
point, then i fail to understand what natural=cape does mean. Does it
only mean the extreme point of a headland? Are there really names that
only refer to a point? Isn't it rather a fuzzy area that the name
refers to?

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

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 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 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:



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 things) would come under
hills / mountains, wouldn't they?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

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 is natural, so...
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

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 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 things) would come under hills /
> mountains, wouldn't they?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 things) would come under hills /
mountains, wouldn't they?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

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 for every
word in the English language! 



Sorry, Kevin, but at no time did I suggest that we do?

'cape', 'spit', 'point', 'promontory',
'neck', 'hook' are all used in my part of the world for small
peninsulas, 





There are 'point's and 'necks' that are completely inland too. So cape 
and peninsula do not fit these.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Warin]

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, how about "A natural=cape can be part of a natural=peninsula, a 
natural=peninsula can be part of a larger natural=peninsula, but a 
natural=peninsula cannot be part of a natural=cape"?


I've updated the proposal accordingly.


Good, thanks, but that also raises an awkward (& unanswerable?) 
question about "Please do not map very large peninsulas like 
subcontinents as multipolygons as they strain the servers too much and 
are hard to maintain"?


How big is "too much strain" & who can say it's straining too much?

Is Cape York Peninsula OK, but Italy too big?

How can anybody tell?

BTW I'm in no way complaining or objecting to the idea (I'll be voting 
for it when it get's there!), it's just the question of the technical 
limitations that may be involved?




A found a guide somewhere that said 300 was a good maximum number of 
members for a multipolygon.
The northern Blue Mountains tree relation was over 600 and climbing. I 
thought that was a bit high and might need attention, particularly as I 
was adding more members.

I split it into 4 IIRC .. and go them all under 200 members each.

I have not looked as yet at the other large tree relations that I have 
in the past edited. In the 'to do list'.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 we do?


> 'cape', 'spit', 'point', 'promontory',
> 'neck', 'hook' are all used in my part of the world for small
> peninsulas,


which, as I suggested, could all probably be tagged =cape


> and many large peninsulas have the word 'cape' in their
> names


Yep, as mentioned ^ - you will often find Cape "ABC" at the extreme tip of
"ABC" Peninsula & both features should be mapped

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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)? :-)


> This would also lead to multiple tags like natural=headland, natural=point
> etc for the same feature;


Why would it?

If I've decided to go right round the coast of Australia & map all the
capes, headlands etc & find one that someone has tagged as =point, I'm not
going to also tag it as =headland. If it's existing tagging doesn't really
suit eg the low, sandy Southport Spit is tagged as =headland, I'd probably
change the tag, but I wouldn't put an extra one in.

I agree with Christoph, natural=cape should be tagged on a node to
> represent an extreme point of land, such as a cape, headland, point etc.
>

No argument!


> Peninsula should mean an area of land near the coast that is mostly
> surrounded by water, as the etymology shows (“pen-insula” = “almost-island”)
>

A reasonably sizable area, yes


> Some names capes, like “Cape Cod” in Massachusetts, can be tagged with a
> natural=cape node at the point that extends furthest into the water. This
> is useful for nautical charts and mapping the coastline. But “Cape Cod” is
> also a long, thin peninsula, and this could also be mapped with a node at
> the center of the area of land.
>

That's right - either as a node or an area


> But the natural=cape of “Land’s End” in Cornwall, England probably is only
> a natural=cape at the extreme point, since the whole Cornwall peninsula is
> not called Land’s End (if I understood English geography correctly)
>

Perfectly correct:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land%27s_End#/media/File:Cornwall_UK_mainland_location_map.svg

"Land's End" is the cape which forms the western-most point of the Cornwall
(Cornish?) Peninsula


> Some peninsulas will be called something else, like Point Reyes in
> California.


& apparently Point Reyes is a cape at the tip of Point Reyes Peninsula
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Reyes

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

“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 and confusing for
mappers.

I agree with Christoph, natural=cape should be tagged on a node to
represent an extreme point of land, such as a cape, headland, point etc.

Peninsula should mean an area of land near the coast that is mostly
surrounded by water, as the etymology shows (“pen-insula” = “almost-island”)

Some names capes, like “Cape Cod” in Massachusetts, can be tagged with a
natural=cape node at the point that extends furthest into the water. This
is useful for nautical charts and mapping the coastline. But “Cape Cod” is
also a long, thin peninsula, and this could also be mapped with a node at
the center of the area of land.

But the natural=cape of “Land’s End” in Cornwall, England probably is only
a natural=cape at the extreme point, since the whole Cornwall peninsula is
not called Land’s End (if I understood English geography correctly)

Some peninsulas will be called something else, like Point Reyes in
California. The name isn’t important for the definition.

Joseph
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 9:21 AM 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 0.1–0.5 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:
>>
>
> I'd suggest don't worry about their "size" & simply map them by what
> they're called Cape Agulhas is a =cape, Cape York Peninsula is a =peninsula.
>
> Smaller features, such as
> Burleigh Headland https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-28.0932/153.4591
> ,
> Point Danger https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-28.1650/153.5530, &
> Southport Spit https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-27.9567/153.4276
> could all also be mapped as =cape (although the Spit should possibly be an
> =isthmus? {which doesn't actually exist yet!}))
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> S
>
>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Kevin Kenny]

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 0.1–0.5 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:
> I'd suggest don't worry about their "size" & simply map them by what they're 
> called Cape Agulhas is a =cape, Cape York Peninsula is a =peninsula.
>
> Smaller features, such as
> Burleigh Headland https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-28.0932/153.4591,
> Point Danger https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-28.1650/153.5530, &
> Southport Spit https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-27.9567/153.4276
> could all also be mapped as =cape (although the Spit should possibly be an 
> =isthmus? {which doesn't actually exist yet!}))

Does tagging them differently address a practical need? If we map
these things are area features, it's easy to compute an area and use
that to filter search results. We don't HAVE to have a tag for every
word in the English language! 'cape', 'spit', 'point', 'promontory',
'neck', 'hook' are all used in my part of the world for small
peninsulas, and many large peninsulas have the word 'cape' in their
names by synecdoche.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 > 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:
>

I'd suggest don't worry about their "size" & simply map them by what
they're called Cape Agulhas is a =cape, Cape York Peninsula is a =peninsula.

Smaller features, such as
Burleigh Headland https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-28.0932/153.4591,
Point Danger https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-28.1650/153.5530, &
Southport Spit https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=13/-27.9567/153.4276
could all also be mapped as =cape (although the Spit should possibly be an
=isthmus? {which doesn't actually exist yet!}))

Thanks

Graeme


S
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [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/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 part of a larger natural=peninsula, but a natural=peninsula cannot
be part of a natural=cape"?

I've updated the proposal accordingly.
>

Good, thanks, but that also raises an awkward (& unanswerable?) question
about "Please do not map very large peninsulas like subcontinents as
multipolygons as they strain the servers too much and are hard to maintain"?

How big is "too much strain" & who can say it's straining too much?

Is Cape York Peninsula OK, but Italy too big?

How can anybody tell?

BTW I'm in no way complaining or objecting to the idea (I'll be voting for
it when it get's there!), it's just the question of the technical
limitations that may be involved?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

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 (this isn't my strong point), but i
wanted to make it clear that a peninsula can also be part of a bigger
peninsula.

> I'd be inclined to do what other mappers have already done in those examples 
> I posted the other day - follow the (verifiable) coastline, then just draw an 
> arbitrary straight line across the base of the area.

I've updated the proposal accordingly.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Christoph Hormann]

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.

If you look at the size distribution of features with those tags you 
will see that the distinction between place=islet and place=island does 
not have any practical meaning in the data.

In other words:  If you want natural=cape and natural=peninsula to be 
synonyms for natural=cape_or_peninsula and don't mind flushing >11k 
existing natural=cape features with a well defined meaning which are 
not peninsulas down the drain such a limit could help accomplishing 
that.

> place=hamlet, typically less than 100-200 inhabitants.
>
> place=village, typically 1,000-10,000 inhabitants.

Where is the numerical limit in there?

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

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 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.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

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 thinking of.

> If we try to fix "maximal" and "minimal" area, we'll simply run into
> more haggling- because the maximum and minimum do not have bright-line
> definitions, any more than the indefinite line does.

That's true.

> Try as we might to make them go away, there are objects, observable
> and named in the real world, that are areas, part of whose boundaries
> are indefinite. Saying that such things can be only point features is
> shortsighted.

You are right. I've updated the proposal again. It now recommends to
draw the connection to the mainland as a straight line and tag it
indefinite=yes

> I support the 'peninsula' proposal, with the caveat that the Wiki
> should indicate that large (we need guidance on just how large)
> peninsulas should not yet be mapped, because of the technical problems
> in enormous relations.

I forgot to mention this in the proposal. I've done it now.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

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, typically less than 100-200 inhabitants.

place=village, typically 1,000-10,000 inhabitants.

So it's not the first tag with an arbitrary numerical limit.  One could
argue that place=island
should be natural=island.  One could wonder what to call a place with
201-999 inhabitants.
But those are side-issues.  OSM already has tags with arbitrary numerical
limits.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

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 cannot be part of a n=c"?


> Regarding areas with fuzzy boundaries,


I'd be inclined to do what other mappers have already done in those
examples I posted the other day - follow the (verifiable) coastline, then
just draw an arbitrary straight line across the base of the area.

>From my reading, a peninsula / cape / headland / spit etc doesn't actually
have a base or inland border - it is just the name given to that bit of
land sticking out into the sea, so it would seem to only be OSM that is
worried about where it starts.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Christoph Hormann]

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)

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Kevin Kenny]

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 area (= 'maximal area' - 'minimal
> area'). However, this is not part of this proposal.

We deal with indefinite objects more often than some people are
comfortable with. (I've mentioned previously that my state has such
things as county lines that are in part unsurveyed!)

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". An indefinite boundary will normally have
no reason to have tags of its own other than this one - because it
would need to be a 'real' feature in order to have most of them be
meaningful. It would ordinarily be there only to close a multipolygon
topologically, and the tags of the multipolygon of which it's an inner
or outer way would ordinarily be the only other information pertaining
to it.

If we try to fix "maximal" and "minimal" area, we'll simply run into
more haggling- because the maximum and minimum do not have bright-line
definitions, any more than the indefinite line does. We'll have
interminable arguments over what land might and might not be
considered part of a peninsula. I'd like to nip that in the bud by
simply declaring that any choice is arbitrary, and that the drawing of
an arbitrary boundary of an area feature should be informed in part by
what the locals think. Is Wareham, Massachusetts on Cape Cod? I have
no idea, but I bet that the locals have a rough consensus - and if
they don't, that they'd at least be unsurprised if a mapper were to
choose the Cape Cod Canal or the Plymouth County line as the cutoff
with an 'indefinite' indication.

Simply having the tagging allow for an 'indefinite line', I think,
could be a near-universal solution to the fact that bays, peninsulas,
channels, isthmuses, lakes with broad inlets/outlets, rivers with
broad mouths, administrative regions with unsurveyed boundaries,
mountain ranges,  etc. all are area features that have a distinct
shape, except for the fact that part of their margin may be
indefinite.

Try as we might to make them go away, there are objects, observable
and named in the real world, that are areas, part of whose boundaries
are indefinite. Saying that such things can be only point features is
shortsighted.

I support the 'peninsula' proposal, with the caveat that the Wiki
should indicate that large (we need guidance on just how large)
peninsulas should not yet be mapped, because of the technical problems
in enormous relations. If Arabia, Malaya, Kamchatka, Gaspé  or
Delmarva are likely to choke the servers, then we need at least
temporarily to exclude them - just as we exclude the Gulf of Bothnia
or the Sea of Cortez. I'm certainly willing to concede that the
technical limitation needs to be respected - without ruling out the
idea that someday it may be relaxed or eliminated.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

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 non-water part
of the boundary should not be larger than three halves of the square
root of its area. This limit (which is about equivalent to an
equilateral triangle shaped peninsula connected at one of its sides)
is a bit wider than that proposed by Christoph (square root of its
area), thus allowing some peninsulas like Cape Sizun [2] to be tagged
as natural=peninsula, which otherwise would still lack a tag.

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 area (= 'maximal area' - 'minimal
area'). However, this is not part of this proposal.

[1]: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Dpeninsula
[2]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/6218728226#map=11/48.0473/-4.4886

Best regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 4:47 PM Daniel Koć  wrote:
> BTW: if we want to use proportion of length to area, we claim that we
> know this area somehow.

If the feature is represented as a polygon, we do.

If we have confidence that at least some shoreline is unambiguously
part of the peninsula's shoreline, take the smallest shoreline in
which we have confidence, strike an arbitrary line between its
endpoints to complete a polygon, use that polygon to compute the area.
Since this is a rough guideline, it doesn't need to be mathematically
precise. Whether you estimate that the boundary of Cape Cod is the
canal, or a line from approximately Wareham to Plymouth, or a line
running approximately NE from Buttermilk Bay, you'll still find that
the length of the land border is many times less than either the
length of the waterfront or the square root of the area. Similarly,
with Nova Scotia, the answer won't change whether you draw the border
from Truro to Trenton or across the narrowest part of the Chignecto
Isthmus, or at the provincial border.

For almost any tag, in almost any situation, we defer to local mappers
when we come close to the borders of "what sort of object is this?"  I
would not protest if a Michigander were to map the Upper and Lower
Peninsulas, setting their boundaries as the state line, because that's
the local understanding.  If the Iberian Peninsula were to be mapped,
I'd defer to the Europeans where to put the arbitrary land border. It
seems that cutting across the narrowest part would be wrongheaded - it
would exclude much of Catalonia, including Barcelona. But I'd let the
mappers of Andorra decide whether the arbitrary line should include
them.

For the use cases I have in mind (using the shape of a
partially-indefinite area to guide label shaping as well as
placement), the precise arbitrary line will make no significant
difference to the rendered result.  The worst case will be that the
terminal A in a curved IBERIA might be a little closer to Zaragoza or
a little closer to Toulouse.  If the 'G' in 'Gulf of Bothnia' (or the
'P' in 'Pohjanlahti) is a little bit closer to or farther from Åland,
that will not matter a bit - the label will still render on a curved
light, roughly south to north, from there to somewhere offshore of
Oulu. But rendering it well does require information about the shape
of the object.

In short, there are effective uses to be made of the data, and
effective guidelines that can be set for tagging them, even if there's
less than perfect precision in the guidelines, or the shape depends on
some indefinite boundary.  To discard that information on the basis of
'verifiability' is 'all or nothing' thinking. Surely the Gulf of
Finland verifiably exists. Surely Helsinki, Tallinn and Saint
Petersburg are all verifiably on its shores.  The fact that there is
no precise line to separate it from the Baltic Sea should not prevent
an application from being able to benefit from the incomplete
information that is knowable about its shape.

It's a delicate philosophical point, and it's one that we stumble over
in this list regularly: when the existence of an object is verifiable,
but there is only partial information known (or knowable, as in the
case of virtually any waterbody or most area landforms) about its
geometry or other attributes, is that object 'verifiable' for the
purposes of OSM?  We have decided that we can map rivers - despite
there being an impossible-to-define line that separates the river from
the lake or sea into which it empties. (And we haggle endlessly over
the rules for drawing that line.) We've decided that mapping bays is
mostly unacceptable - because of the arbitrariness of the mouth of the
bay but in practice more because larger bays produce data that
overwhelms databases and data consumers (hence the revert of the Gulf
of Bothnia relation) - and similarly, we reject seas. We mostly accept
political divisions with indefinite borders (but struggle over
disputed ones). Now we struggle with peninsulas.
The stated reasons are all the same - that a portion of the geometry
is not verifiable, therefore even the verifiable part of the geometry
must not be mapped.

I'm no philosopher. I simply have a wish to render certain features
based on the incomplete data that are knowable and verifiable. Some of
the philosophers tell me that my understanding of the world is wrong -
that such features aren't 'real'. I *think* I see them.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 07:47, Daniel Koć  wrote:

>
> Maybe we could also start with real life examples first to know where is
> the most common limit of size/proportion etc. for both types.
>

OK, here's a few examples from Australia - & it turns out most of them are
already in OSM under a variety of designations!

Burrup Peninsula
https://www.australiasnorthwest.com/business/attractions/murujuga-national-park-burrup-peninsula
- scroll down for map

Mornington Peninsula:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/281#map=10/-38.3311/144.9566

Eyre Peninsula: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6345515

Yorke Peninsula:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6639578#map=8/-34.447/137.455

Fleurieu Peninsula:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7250640#map=9/-35.5857/138.7394

With these 3, note how the mappers have handled the "inside" edge - makes a
lot of sense!

Cape York Peninsula that I mentioned earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_York_Peninsula
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/304927126#map=6/-15.041/142.387
with a node at the northern tip only, on what is actually Cape York!

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Kevin Kenny]

Let me just add a general note to this discussion. I continue to be
interested in studying how to do better label rendering for elongated
features such as certain seas (e.g. the Red Sea), gulfs (the Gulf of
Bothnia or the Gulf of Aqaba), bays (Chesapeake Bay), peninsulas (Cape
Cod), isthmuses, islands (Jura), countries (Norway, Sweden), lakes
(Lake Michigan), channels (Skagerrak), sounds (Long Island Sound),
straits (Queen Charlotte Strait), etc.

The idea would be to examine techniques like those presented in
http://portal.survey.ntua.gr/main/courses/geoinfo/admcarto/lecture_notes/name_placement/bibliography/barrault_2001.pdf
 The figures of the paper (from about figure 10 on) show some of the
sort of results that can be achieved.  (It's unfortunate that the scan
quality is so poor that the labels on the shaded areas are almost
impossible to make out.)

Those techniques absolutely require that the features to which they
apply be represented as areas.

I can certainly pilot the project on relatively noncontroversial area
features such as the aforementioned countries, lakes and islands, but
other area features will eventually require tackling both the
technical difficulties in dealing with enormous areas and the
political difficulties in dealing with areas for which part of the
boundary is indefinite.

I surely won't upload any controversial multipolygons at least until a
pilot project is done, and I've no fixed time frame in which I plan to
proceed. (So many projects, so little time!) But I think we can't
afford to forget that high-quality labeling may eventually depend on
resolving these questions.

I know that there will continue to be a healthy controversy, but I
remain confident that if there is a tangible benefit to be achieved
from tagging indefinite objects, eventually the community will accept
it as a necessary evil, and we'll work our way over the technical
hurdles.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 06:39, Markus  wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 17:07, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
>
> > So is Andorra within or outside the Iberian peninsula?
>
> I was wondering the same. I'd say that it's on the (blurred) verge.
>

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra

" is a sovereign  landlocked
microstate  on the Iberian
Peninsula , in the eastern
Pyrenees , bordered by France
 to the north and Spain
 to the south"

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 10.01.2019 o 22:29, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> On Thursday 10 January 2019, Markus wrote:
>> I've replaced *nearly surrounded by water* with *surrounded by water
>> on the majority of its border*, but i'm unsure whether this is
>> clearer. If you or someone has a better idea, please tell me.
> That is a fairly toothless criterion 

I agree. For any part of the land - let's say it's a cape triangle with
"a" and "b" being both coastline and "c" being land border - a+b is
greater than c, even if a and b are straight lines.

> A more robust and tighter criterion would be that the length of the 
> non-water part of the boundary needs to be shorter than the square root 
> of its area.  

Another idea could be using absolute measures. For example anything up
to kilometer is a cape and anything bigger is peninsula.

It can be also multi-criteria definition, similar to monument: peninsula
can be anything bigger than that and if it contains at least one cape etc.

Maybe we could also start with real life examples first to know where is
the most common limit of size/proportion etc. for both types.

BTW: if we want to use proportion of length to area, we claim that we
know this area somehow.


-- 
"I see dead people" [Sixth Sense]



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 10 January 2019, Markus wrote:
>
> I've replaced *nearly surrounded by water* with *surrounded by water
> on the majority of its border*, but i'm unsure whether this is
> clearer. If you or someone has a better idea, please tell me.

That is a fairly toothless criterion because you will very often be able 
to achive this simply by mapping the coastline in more detail (making 
it longer).

A more robust and tighter criterion would be that the length of the 
non-water part of the boundary needs to be shorter than the square root 
of its area.  Geometrically this limit is equivalent to a square shaped 
peninsula connected at one of its sides.  Ultimately any such criterion 
is an arbitrary limit of course.

Practical examples of things frequently called peninsulas that exceed 
this limit are the Balkan Peninsula:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkans

and the Indian subcontinent:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent

But i think if you really want natural=peninsula to be meaningful 
geometrically you need to go at least to this limit.

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 at 20:39, Markus  wrote:

I've replaced *nearly surrounded by water* with *surrounded by water
> on the majority of its border*, but i'm unsure whether this is
> clearer. If you or someone has a better idea, please tell me.
>

>From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula

A *peninsula* (Latin :
*paeninsula* from *paene* "almost” and *insula* "island") is a piece of
land surrounded by water on the majority of its border while being
connected to a mainland  from
which it extends.

I think the etymology is a useful bit of guidance.  The rest is what you
have but with a little extra
at the end, which may serve to make it clearer.  It would probably be
sensible to link to that Wikipedia
article for clarification.

It may help you to also read
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Isthmus_vs_Peninsula
so you can add the difference between an isthmus and a peninsula (so people
don't tag
isthmuses as peninsulas).  It also has a slightly different explanation of
what a peninsula
is (a definition that was mentioned here in the past week or so).

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 14:11, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
> Am Mi., 9. Jan. 2019 um 10:36 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm :
>>
>> I fear that people will otherwise with great diligence and fun tag
>> things like the "Iberian Peninsula" which will not be of any use and
>> just lead to more relation clutter. (Cf. discussion about bays.)
>
> while I would not advocate either for modelling the Iberian Peninsula with 
> our current system (e.g. as multipolygon), I would like to express dissent on 
> the motion it "would not be of any use". IMHO it clearly would be desirable 
> to be able to map big "objects" like this in a smart way. WM has WP records 
> for 120 languages for the Iberian Peninsula [1], there will be people 
> interested in this, no?

+1

> The only reasons I see for approving "small" peninsulas" but not big ones, 
> are of technical nature (limitations of what we can model, and how expensive 
> it is).

I must admit that i didn't think of that and i also didn't follow that
other discussion about bays. (I would like to follow all discussions,
but unfortunately i only have limited time ...) I don't want to add an
upper limit for mapping peninsulas as this were very arbitrary, but
i'm fine with adding a recommendation to map larger areas as nodes
because of these technical difficulties.

> On a sidenote: the Iberian Peninsula is already mapped in OSM as a relation, 
> and it is in Version 848 ;-)
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3870917

I wonder why the border to the rest of Europe is so zigzagged. I would
have drawn a straight line or rather mapped the Iberian Peninsula as a
node.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 17:07, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
>
>> I believe many time the boundary of a peninsula are politically defined, for 
>> instance most would often see the Iberia peninsula end at where Spain meet 
>> France
>
> So is Andorra within or outside the Iberian peninsula?

I was wondering the same. I'd say that it's on the (blurred) verge.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 13:53, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
> So if you want natural=peninsula to mean something more specific
> than 'some named land area at the coast' (like bay tagging on polygon
> meanwhile just means 'some water area near the coast a mapper wanted to
> label') you better try to make the definition somewhat clearer.

I've replaced *nearly surrounded by water* with *surrounded by water
on the majority of its border*, but i'm unsure whether this is
clearer. If you or someone has a better idea, please tell me.

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Thursday 10 January 2019, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>
>   In order to have correct labelling you need polygon geometry for
> peninsulas (as well as for other objects), [...]

Just for the record: This is not correct (discussed plenty of times in 
the past, no need to repeat).

Note the proposal from Markus is so far not indicating preferences on 
node vs. polygon apart from verifiability concerns.  This part of the 
discussion is about if the proposal should discourage mapping large 
peninsulas with polygons for practical reasons of ease of mapping and 
maintainability of the data.  I think this would be a good idea but i 
also doubt this would prevent some mappers to push such mapping.

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tomas Straupis]

2019-01-10, kt, 10:54 Dave Swarthout rašė:
> We just went through a whole discussion about mapping bays as
> polygons. (see 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-November/040911.html)
> <...>

  Yes, I agree with everything. You are describing why polygons are
needed for labels, you and Martin are describing why it is not
practical and what temporary workarounds could be used. Thus my
initial note: this is one of the things pushing in direction of
creating multiple data layers in OSM (some day in the future, say 2024
:-).

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Dave Swarthout]

Tomas,

We just went through a whole discussion about mapping bays as
polygons. (see 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-November/040911.html)
This is a similar one. I was one of the people who promoted converting
nodes that describe bays into polygons in order to better represent
their true size and provide better label placement. Now, after having
to add boundaries to those areas of coastline, I can see the benefits
of leaving the nodes as they are and allowing software to place the
result labels as best it can. Many on this list didn't favor using
multipolygons to outline bays either. Involving polygons does
complicate subsequent mapping chores. For example, I was adding a
National Park boundary in Alaska. I wanted to conflate it with
coastline where I could. So I have this way, the boundary way, that is
also shared with a peninsula, and also a portion of named ocean, the
Chukchi Sea, a large "bay" of sorts, which is also a multipolygon.
Each section of coastline/boundary must now be added separately to
these three multipolygons! It's a ton of work.

I stopped using multipolygons to map bays after that. I might use them
on occasion to better "illustrate" peninsulas but I won't do that in
an area where there's already multipolygon complexity present. As
people pointed out in the last discussion, it makes for a ton of extra
work and invites errors from novice mappers. I now agree with that
view.

Dave

On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 2:56 PM Tomas Straupis  wrote:
>
> 2019-01-10, kt, 09:06 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė:
> > coding the geometry into the db does not necessarily mean creating polygons 
> > though.
> > You could also store just 3 nodes and a hint that these are representing a 
> > polygon, to store a triangle (for example).
>
>   Sorry, I did not get it. How saving only vertexes is better than
> having a polygon (made out of those vertexes)?
>
>   Full geometry is required to be able to calculate label positions on
> all scales. For small scales this could be a simple curved line
> (calculated from polygon geometry), for large scales it could be a lot
> of labels placed/scattered on the same polygon geometry and
> approximating (simplifying) such polygon too much would decrease
> number of labels placed or labels would be placed outside of an object
> which is even worse.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Jan 2019, at 08:54, Tomas Straupis  wrote:
> 
> Sorry, I did not get it. How saving only vertexes is better than
> having a polygon (made out of those vertexes)?
> 
>  Full geometry is required to be able to calculate label positions on
> all scales.


The full geometry would not have to be stored in the db as a polygon , it is 
sufficient to have the information to be able to create it. This would make 
evaluating these things more expensive therefore could be done not by default 
only by request (eg in osm2pgsql), for fuzzy border objects for example it 
doesn’t make sense to draw a precise border anyway. For a peninsula for example 
(not a fuzzy border object, at least not completely) it would be clear that the 
sea is not part of it, so in theory with just 2 coastline nodes and a 
definition how to order them, the iberian peninsula would be sufficiently 
defined (for the land border we could look at the watershed? Ridges etc.?)
A problem with this approach could be to find the relations if you wanted to 
edit them, but this could be solved by a search index (nominatim etc), and it 
would make it more complicated to understand what happens why (understand the 
data structures).

Geographic regions on the land are more difficult because they often don’t have 
a precisely defined border. This also means you do not need to know it, it 
would be sufficient to have a coarse idea about the extension/size and shape, 
so you could decide when and where to draw labels or show the region as a 
search result. A new datatype would be needed for this, e.g. by telling a few 
things that are still clearly inside and clearly outside the region it would be 
somehow possible to “guess” the rough geometry in these cases.


Cheers, Martin 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tomas Straupis]

2019-01-10, kt, 09:06 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė:
> coding the geometry into the db does not necessarily mean creating polygons 
> though.
> You could also store just 3 nodes and a hint that these are representing a 
> polygon, to store a triangle (for example).

  Sorry, I did not get it. How saving only vertexes is better than
having a polygon (made out of those vertexes)?

  Full geometry is required to be able to calculate label positions on
all scales. For small scales this could be a simple curved line
(calculated from polygon geometry), for large scales it could be a lot
of labels placed/scattered on the same polygon geometry and
approximating (simplifying) such polygon too much would decrease
number of labels placed or labels would be placed outside of an object
which is even worse.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Jan 2019, at 07:23, Tomas Straupis  wrote:
> 
>  In order to have correct labelling you need polygon geometry for
> peninsulas (as well as for other objects), but having them in current
> OSM database is not practical.


coding the geometry into the db does not necessarily mean creating polygons 
though. 
You could also store just 3 nodes and a hint that these are representing a 
polygon, to store a triangle (for example).




Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tomas Straupis]

2019-01-09, tr, 19:36 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
>> And here we're one more step closer to introducing gis layers in OSM.
>
> I have no idea how natural=peninsula tagging is related to that.

  In order to have correct labelling you need polygon geometry for
peninsulas (as well as for other objects), but having them in current
OSM database is not practical.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 09 January 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> on second thought, if the Iberian Peninsula is already a Peninsula,
> does that invalidate all Peninsula claims on land masses protruding
> from it, or can there be cascading Peninsulas?

Of course, and you can measure the level of completeness in mapping by 
how many bays and peninsulas a coastline segment is member of.

If only someone would have warned us about this years ago... Oh wait, 
someone did:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-October/019780.html

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Jan 9, 2019, 5:43 PM by tomasstrau...@gmail.com:

> And here we're one more step closer to introducing gis layers in OSM. 
>
I have no idea how natural=peninsula tagging is related to that. Can you 
consider using quoting,
so it is clear to what you respond?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Jan 2019, at 16:36, Paul Allen  wrote:
> [fractal coastline]
> Good luck mapping that.


the sense of mapping natural features like peninsulas is putting toponomyns on 
the map. If nobody bothered to call a thing like this with a name, you would 
not map it.

Cheers, Martin 




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Tomas Straupis]

And here we're one more step closer to introducing gis layers in OSM. Not
there yet, but as maps created from OSM data start aproaching cartographic
conventions, the only other way is to use other - non OSM sources.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 11:35 PM Phake Nick  wrote:

> I believe many time the boundary of a peninsula are politically defined,
> for instance most would often see the Iberia peninsula end at where Spain
> meet France
>

So is Andorra within or outside the Iberian peninsula?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 15:28, Frederik Ramm  wrote:

on second thought, if the Iberian Peninsula is already a Peninsula, does
> that invalidate all Peninsula claims on land masses protruding from it,
> or can there be cascading Peninsulas?
>

Coastline geometry is fractal.  A fact summed up with this verse:

Big peninsulas have little peninsulas protruding out from 'em,
And little peninsulas have lesser peninsulas, and so *ad infinitum*.

Good luck mapping that.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Phake Nick]

I believe many time the boundary of a peninsula are politically defined,
for instance most would often see the Iberia peninsula end at where Spain
meet France, Indochina peninsula's boundary will probably be the southern
border of China, and Sinai peninsula's boundary would be the current border
between Israel and Egypt.

Other time there could be natural features that separate peninsula from the
mainland it connected to, like a mountain range or a low lying corridor, or
man-made structures like canal.

However there are also situation that peninsula are separated from mainland
using simply a straight line, depend on coast direction of surrounding land.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

on second thought, if the Iberian Peninsula is already a Peninsula, does
that invalidate all Peninsula claims on land masses protruding from it,
or can there be cascading Peninsulas?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 09.01.19 14:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> The only reasons I see for
> approving "small" peninsulas" but not big ones, are of technical nature

Yes. People will create a new "multipolygon" or "boundary" relation
containing each and every way of the Spanish coastline for every
geographic feature they can think of. Ah, surely this is part of
"Eurasia". And of "Europe". And of "Spain". And of the "Iberian
Peninsula". And the water is the "Mediterranean Sea". And ... then when
you split a piece of coastline in Spain, you've edited 25 relations
spanning half the globe.

Granted, it's a technical shortcoming, but while this exists people
should respect it.

> On a sidenote: the Iberian Peninsula is already mapped in OSM as a
> relation, and it is in Version 848 ;-)

Must...resist...urge...to...delete...

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mi., 9. Jan. 2019 um 10:36 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm :

> I fear that people will otherwise with great diligence and fun tag
> things like the "Iberian Peninsula" which will not be of any use and
> just lead to more relation clutter. (Cf. discussion about bays.)





while I would not advocate either for modelling the Iberian Peninsula with
our current system (e.g. as multipolygon), I would like to express dissent
on the motion it "would not be of any use". IMHO it clearly would be
desirable to be able to map big "objects" like this in a smart way. WM has
WP records for 120 languages for the Iberian Peninsula [1], there will be
people interested in this, no? The only reasons I see for approving "small"
peninsulas" but not big ones, are of technical nature (limitations of what
we can model, and how expensive it is).

On a sidenote: the Iberian Peninsula is already mapped in OSM as a
relation, and it is in Version 848 ;-)
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3870917

Cheers,
Martin




[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12837
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 09 January 2019, Markus wrote:
> >
> > * seen from water: landmark at the coast to circumnavigate
> > * seen from land: coastal extreme point on land in a certain
> > direction
>
> Couldn't 'a point to circumnavigate' lead to confusion because
> peninsulas needs to be circumnavigated too?

I don't know - that depends on how you want to define natural=peninsula.
In classic navigation you use landmarks at the coast to plot and verify 
your course.  That is what is meant with the above.

> Isn't this clear by definition? The current definition of
> natural=peninsula is 'a piece of land nearly surrounded by water or
> projecting into water from a larger land mass' while a coastal area
> is longish.

As you can see the concept of 'nearly' is pretty vague here.  The 
description for bays uses the term 'mostly' and look what this has led 
to:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4681569
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/552099079
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8399350

So if you want natural=peninsula to mean something more specific 
than 'some named land area at the coast' (like bay tagging on polygon 
meanwhile just means 'some water area near the coast a mapper wanted to 
label') you better try to make the definition somewhat clearer.

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 10:37, Janko Mihelić  wrote:
>
> I think we need to map peninsulas in three ways, as nodes, areas, and ways.
>
> Areas when the land border is obvious. Nodes for little ones, when you don't 
> have time to draw an area and the shape of the peninsula is obvious. Then 
> there are ways, when the peninsula is huge, or when the land border isn't 
> obvious, like the Italian peninsula or the Peninsula of India. I made a 
> proposal for mapping peninsulas as ways:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Peninsula

I find it rather counter-intuitive to map a peninsula as a way.
Besides what you propose is rather an unclosed area than a way.

But the biggest problem – the unclear borders (and thus the lack of
verifiability) – remains the same.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 01.01.19 16:59, Markus wrote:
> Thanks for your comments so far! I've changed the proposed tag to
> natural=peninsula:

It would be great if you could make it clear that the tag should be used
for *small* peninsulas (peninsulae?) only, and is not intended as a
vehicle to catalogue everything that technically is a peninsula.

I fear that people will otherwise with great diligence and fun tag
things like the "Iberian Peninsula" which will not be of any use and
just lead to more relation clutter. (Cf. discussion about bays.)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 22:46, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
> Accordingly it would be good if the suggestion is not: Use natural=cape
> for capes and natural=peninsula for peninsulas but if there is an
> discerning abstract definition that is language independent.
>
> As written on the wiki natural=cape is essentially:
>
> * seen from water: landmark at the coast to circumnavigate
> * seen from land: coastal extreme point on land in a certain direction

Couldn't 'a point to circumnavigate' lead to confusion because
peninsulas needs to be circumnavigated too? Isn't the current
distinction clear enough?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Dpeninsula#See_also

> What you will probably need to consider is how to distinguish
> natural=peninula from named parts of the coast or named coastal areas

Isn't this clear by definition? The current definition of
natural=peninsula is 'a piece of land nearly surrounded by water or
projecting into water from a larger land mass' while a coastal area is
longish.

> and if you want to include more specific coastal land forms like spits.

Good point! It might be better to tag spits separately (natural=spit
seems obvious), as they differ from peninsulas quite a lot with regard
to their shape.

Should i also propose tags for coastal areas and spits?

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Janko Mihelić]

I think we need to map peninsulas in three ways, as nodes, areas, and ways.

Areas when the land border is obvious. Nodes for little ones, when you
don't have time to draw an area and the shape of the peninsula is obvious.
Then there are ways, when the peninsula is huge, or when the land border
isn't obvious, like the Italian peninsula or the Peninsula of India. I made
a proposal for mapping peninsulas as ways:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Peninsula

Janko

On Sat, Jan 5, 2019, 23:10 Christoph Hormann  wrote:

>
> For understanding of the Florida physical geography - Cape Canaveral is
> located here
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4887735121
>
> USGS topos identify another cape - unmapped in OSM - slightly northwest
> called the 'False Cape' (somewhat generic term for capes that are
> likely mistaken for the real thing from the sea) near here:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5316727559
>
> The area Cape Canaveral AFS is built on
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7384620
>
> is called Canaveral Peninsula (unmapped in OSM - see USGS topos as well)
> which is part of Merritt Island.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Christoph Hormann]

For understanding of the Florida physical geography - Cape Canaveral is 
located here

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4887735121

USGS topos identify another cape - unmapped in OSM - slightly northwest 
called the 'False Cape' (somewhat generic term for capes that are 
likely mistaken for the real thing from the sea) near here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5316727559

The area Cape Canaveral AFS is built on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7384620

is called Canaveral Peninsula (unmapped in OSM - see USGS topos as well) 
which is part of Merritt Island.

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 05 January 2019, Markus wrote:
>
> I'm aware of this. I just wanted to be be sure that i don't introduce
> a tag that overlaps with the definition of another OSM tag – in this
> case natural=cape. But as natural=cape has almost exclusively been
> used for costal extreme points, there doesn't seem to be an overlap,
> even without the requirement of an isthmus.

Yes, de facto use of natural=cape was at least until recently for a very 
narrow set of features.  And it would be good for data quality if that 
would stay this way.  Therefore it is good if there is an alternative 
in the form of natural=peninsula that can be used by mappers who want 
to map something that might be called a 'cape' or some similar term in 
a different language but that is not a natural=cape for OSM.

Accordingly it would be good if the suggestion is not: Use natural=cape 
for capes and natural=peninsula for peninsulas but if there is an 
discerning abstract definition that is language independent.

As written on the wiki natural=cape is essentially:

* seen from water: landmark at the coast to circumnavigate
* seen from land: coastal extreme point on land in a certain direction

What you will probably need to consider is how to distinguish 
natural=peninula from named parts of the coast or named coastal areas 
and if you want to include more specific coastal land forms like spits.

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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 05.01.2019 o 13:06, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> natural=cape means what it is used for in OSM
> and this - at least until
>
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3452
>
> had nothing even remotely to do with peninsulas.  This meaning is 
> described on the wiki (and indeed i tried to make it reflect the actual 
> use):
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=cape


Sorry, but "piece of land" at the very heart of definition clearly
suggests area rather than node and using areas are allowed for this type
of object. In fact at high zoom level areas are basic, while nodes work
only as an approximation on lower zoom levels. You would not fit entire
Space Center if Cape Canaveral was really a node, for example. It can
only be viewed as a node when looking at the Florida scale.

All the peninsula/cape/etc. distinction is blurry "by design", because
it's how human tries to name/use the natural space, which is not
discrete in many cases:

"Peninsulas are not always named as such; one can also be a headland,
cape, island promontory, bill, point, or spit."

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula ]

We can just set some conventions, just like we do for stream/river or
monument/memorial.


-- 
"I see dead people" [Sixth Sense]



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 13:08, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
> To make this clear once again since this continues to be forgotten:  The
> meaning of tags in OSM does not necessarily have anything to do with
> the culture specific definition of the terms used for key and value
> from some dictionary.

I'm aware of this. I just wanted to be be sure that i don't introduce
a tag that overlaps with the definition of another OSM tag – in this
case natural=cape. But as natural=cape has almost exclusively been
used for costal extreme points, there doesn't seem to be an overlap,
even without the requirement of an isthmus.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 05 January 2019, Markus wrote:
>
> I originally included the requirement for an isthmus in order to have
> a clear differentiation from capes, as the broader definition of
> peninsulas without the requirement for an isthmus overlaps with the
> (broader) definition of capes, see e.g. Merriam-Webster:
>
> [...]

To make this clear once again since this continues to be forgotten:  The 
meaning of tags in OSM does not necessarily have anything to do with 
the culture specific definition of the terms used for key and value 
from some dictionary.  natural=cape means what it is used for in OSM 
and this - at least until

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3452

had nothing even remotely to do with peninsulas.  This meaning is 
described on the wiki (and indeed i tried to make it reflect the actual 
use):

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=cape

These are typical major capes:

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/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

Thank you all for your feedback and please excuse my late reply.

On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 at 22:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
>
> I have concerns about the definition of peninsula that you've used "a piece 
> of land nearly surrounded by water and connected to a larger land area by an 
> isthmus, that is a narrow strip of land"
>
> I did see that definition, but most definitions of peninsula that I have 
> found don't mention the "narrow strip of land" eg peninsula:  A piece of land 
> projecting into water from a larger land mass; cape: A piece or point of 
> land, extending beyond the adjacent coast into a sea or lake; a promontory; a 
> headland.

I originally included the requirement for an isthmus in order to have
a clear differentiation from capes, as the broader definition of
peninsulas without the requirement for an isthmus overlaps with the
(broader) definition of capes, see e.g. Merriam-Webster:

'a point or extension of land jutting out into water as a peninsula or
as a projecting point'

However, it seems that natural=cape has mainly been used for costal
extreme points, so we still have a differentiation, which hopefully is
clear and objective enough.

I've updated the proposal page accordingly.

Regards, Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 01:44, Joseph Eisenberg
 wrote:
>
I’d suggest encouraging mappers to use a node in the center of a large
peninsula, as is done for continents and seas, rather than trying to
map it as an area.

I've already added this comment in section Tagging:

'If it is unclear where the peninsula begins on the side where it is
connected to the larger land mass, it is recommended to not map it as
an area because of lack of verifiability.'

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Other big peninsulas: Yucatán (in Mexico), Baja California,
Patagonia(Argentina/Chile), Iberia (Spain and Portugal), the Malay
peninsula (southern Thailand and Malaysia), and Korea.

Most of Arabia could be considered a very large peninsula as well.

Certainly these are different than the node that defines the end of a cape
or headland or point, though it can be harder to define the landward limit
of a peninsula.

I’d suggest encouraging mappers to use a node in the center of a large
peninsula, as is done for continents and seas, rather than trying to map it
as an area.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:47 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> On 2. Jan 2019, at 00:14, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> The state of Florida is a peninsula as is India, at least by someone's
> definition.
>
>
>
> also a significant part of Italy:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Peninsula
>
>
> Cheers, Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Jan 2019, at 00:14, Dave Swarthout  wrote:
> 
> The state of Florida is a peninsula as is India, at least by someone's 
> definition.


also a significant part of Italy: 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Peninsula


Cheers, Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Dave Swarthout]

Agree with Graeme. I like the illustration he shared too, "a cape can be
found at the end of a peninsula (and, in my experience, often are) while
you'll never see a peninsula at the end of a cape." The state of Florida is
a peninsula as is India, at least by someone's definition.

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:42 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 02:01, Markus  wrote:
>
>>
>> Is the distinction of peninsulas from capes correct (see section See
>> also)?
>>
>
> I have concerns about the definition of peninsula that you've used "a
> piece of land nearly surrounded by water and *connected to a larger land
> area by an isthmus, that is a narrow strip of land*"
>
> I did see that definition, but most definitions of peninsula that I have
> found don't mention the "narrow strip of land" eg peninsula:  A piece of
> land projecting into water from a larger land mass; cape: A piece or
> point of land, extending beyond the adjacent coast into a sea or lake; a
> promontory; a headland.
>
> Another good explanation, with some examples:
> https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-a-cape-and-a-peninsula-They-seem-to-have-different-definitions-that-are-in-practice-actually-the-same-thing.
> As they put it "a cape can be found at the end of a peninsula. Peninsulas
> are not found at the end of capes"
>
> I also give you Cape York Peninsula,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_York_Peninsula which is a peninsula
> terminating in Cape York - definitely no "narrow strips of land" involved!
> :-)
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 02:01, Markus  wrote:

>
> Is the distinction of peninsulas from capes correct (see section See also)?
>

I have concerns about the definition of peninsula that you've used "a piece
of land nearly surrounded by water and *connected to a larger land area by
an isthmus, that is a narrow strip of land*"

I did see that definition, but most definitions of peninsula that I have
found don't mention the "narrow strip of land" eg peninsula:  A piece of
land projecting into water from a larger land mass; cape: A piece or point
of land, extending beyond the adjacent coast into a sea or lake; a
promontory; a headland.

Another good explanation, with some examples:
https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-a-cape-and-a-peninsula-They-seem-to-have-different-definitions-that-are-in-practice-actually-the-same-thing.
As they put it "a cape can be found at the end of a peninsula. Peninsulas
are not found at the end of capes"

I also give you Cape York Peninsula,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_York_Peninsula which is a peninsula
terminating in Cape York - definitely no "narrow strips of land" involved!
:-)

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Markus]

Hello everyone,

Thanks for your comments so far! I've changed the proposed tag to
natural=peninsula:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Dpeninsula

Is the distinction of peninsulas from capes correct (see section See also)?

Wishing you all a happy new year!

Regards

Markus
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging