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 [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
