On Tue, Aug 7, 2018 at 12:56 PM, Daniel Koć <daniel@koć.pl> wrote: > > The problem of how much continents there is and how are they named, is > just parallel - it's > equally valid problem for points and areas.
Just to add to the confusion, the attribution of a location to a continent depends upon context, even when we decide what to call continents. These days, geologists tend to think of continents in terms of tectonic plates. Turkey and Cyprus are on the Anatolian plate, and this region was/is known as Asia Minor (a term not used much these days, but in the past it was termed a sub-continent) and is also known as Anatolia. Geopolitically, both are considered to be part of Europe despite being on a separate tectonic plate. You *might* be able to make an argument for mapping tectonic plates. They're not at the whim of politicians and geography teachers. Continents are a little more whimsical: when I was a child India was a continent, later a sub-continent. Tectonic plates are much more permanent. Or maybe we need opengeologymap to render them even if the data for them is held within the OSM database. Or maybe they're not worth the bother. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
