On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 at 00:26, Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de> wrote: > > [...] 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.
I think this problem is now solved by adding the recommendation that natural=peninsula should only be used if the length of the non-water part of the boundary isn't larger than three halves of the square root of its area. > 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: I've never visited any of these capes and thus can't tell you if the names only refer to a point or to a (fuzzy) area. But, as another example, the Pointe de Pen-Hir [1], which is a headland forming a coastal extreme point, refers to an area of about 0.3 km². [1]: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/294001824#map=15/48.2569/-4.6225 _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
