On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 at 22:41, Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de> 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 knowledge be a first in the whole OSM tagging system > that defines a tag through an arbitrary numerical limit. And a > pointless limit i would like to add because any data user who wants to > filter for peninsulas larger than one square kilometer could do so just > as well (or with as much difficulty) as the mapper. > > * it would dilute the meaning of natural=cape from its current very > narrow meaning to one of "what natural=cape currently means plus small > peninsulas" which would not only be counterproductive for data quality, > it would also be completely counter-intuitive for the mapper (tagging a > cape and a 0.9 km^2 peninsula the same but tagging a 0.9 km^2 peninsula > and a 1.1 km^2 peninsula differently)
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. 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. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
