On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 14:11, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Am Mi., 9. Jan. 2019 um 10:36 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <[email protected]>: >> >> 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 [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
