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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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: >

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

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

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

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 >

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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?

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

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:

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 09:26, Christoph Hormann wrote: > On Saturday 19 January 2019, Markus wrote: > > > By the way, i measured a few dozen of > > points/capes/headlands/peninsulas of Brittany. Most either have an > > area of about 0.1–0.5 km² (they are usually called pointes 'points') > > or >

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

On Saturday 19 January 2019, Markus wrote: > > An arbitrary and absolute limit is not ideal and i actually don't > like it very much, but the only other solution i see is to abandon > natural=cape and map all > points/capes/headlands/promontories/peninsulas with one single tag, > whether it be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 22:41, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > On Friday 18 January 2019, Markus wrote: > > [...]particularly the > > distinction from natural=cape. natural=peninsula now includes a > > minimal area limit of 1 km². > > That is a very bad idea on two accounts: > > * it would to my

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

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 21:49, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > Rather than a new relation type, I think it would be simpler to tag > the indefinite part of the boundary of whatever area feature with a > key like "indefinite=yes". [...] This is a sensible solution and it's even simpler than what i was

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

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

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

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

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

On Friday 18 January 2019, Markus wrote: > [...]particularly the > distinction from natural=cape. natural=peninsula now includes a > minimal area limit of 1 km². That is a very bad idea on two accounts: * it would to my knowledge be a first in the whole OSM tagging system that defines a tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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),

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

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

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

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?

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

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,

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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