I'm resending/forwarding the following email to the tagging list, because i forgot to reply to all.
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Markus <selfishseaho...@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 17:56 Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula) To: David Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com> On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:49, Dave Swarthout <daveswarth...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I really don't see the need to include this in your proposal. I can't imagine > anybody wanting to tag the French Riviera or the West Coast of the U.S. as a > peninsula. These places cannot possibly be identified as a peninsula using > the criteria you specified or using any criteria really. My advice is to > remove that entire sentence from the proposal. It will only confuse the issue. You are right, my examples are bad and the geometrical limit (length of the non-water part of the boundary ≤ 3/2 square root of its area) is confusing. Nevertheless, i'm hesitant to remove the geometrical limit as others have raised the concern that some people might tag any area at a coast as peninsula (similar to the natural=bay examples). Regards Markus _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
