On 19/01/19 10:22, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 09:09, Markus <selfishseaho...@gmail.com
<mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>> 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
