Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
83 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Markus-5
Hello everyone,

Thanks for your comments so far! I've changed the proposed tag to natural=peninsula:


Is the distinction of peninsulas from capes correct (see section See also)?

Wishing you all a happy new year!

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Graeme Fitzpatrick
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 02:01, Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:

Is the distinction of peninsulas from capes correct (see section See also)?
 
I have concerns about the definition of peninsula that you've used "a piece of land nearly surrounded by water and connected to a larger land area by an isthmus, that is a narrow strip of land" 

I did see that definition, but most definitions of peninsula that I have found don't mention the "narrow strip of land" eg peninsula:  A piece of land projecting into water from a larger land mass; cape: A piece or point of land, extending beyond the adjacent coast into a sea or lake; a promontory; a headland. 

Another good explanation, with some examples: https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-a-cape-and-a-peninsula-They-seem-to-have-different-definitions-that-are-in-practice-actually-the-same-thing. As they put it "a cape can be found at the end of a peninsula. Peninsulas are not found at the end of capes"

I also give you Cape York Peninsula, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_York_Peninsula which is a peninsula terminating in Cape York - definitely no "narrow strips of land" involved! :-)

Thanks

Graeme




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

AlaskaDave
Agree with Graeme. I like the illustration he shared too, "a cape can be found at the end of a peninsula (and, in my experience, often are) while you'll never see a peninsula at the end of a cape." The state of Florida is a peninsula as is India, at least by someone's definition.

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 4:42 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 02:01, Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:

Is the distinction of peninsulas from capes correct (see section See also)?
 
I have concerns about the definition of peninsula that you've used "a piece of land nearly surrounded by water and connected to a larger land area by an isthmus, that is a narrow strip of land" 

I did see that definition, but most definitions of peninsula that I have found don't mention the "narrow strip of land" eg peninsula:  A piece of land projecting into water from a larger land mass; cape: A piece or point of land, extending beyond the adjacent coast into a sea or lake; a promontory; a headland. 

Another good explanation, with some examples: https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-a-cape-and-a-peninsula-They-seem-to-have-different-definitions-that-are-in-practice-actually-the-same-thing. As they put it "a cape can be found at the end of a peninsula. Peninsulas are not found at the end of capes"

I also give you Cape York Peninsula, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_York_Peninsula which is a peninsula terminating in Cape York - definitely no "narrow strips of land" involved! :-)

Thanks

Graeme



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


--
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

On 2. Jan 2019, at 00:14, Dave Swarthout <[hidden email]> wrote:

The state of Florida is a peninsula as is India, at least by someone's definition.


also a significant part of Italy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Peninsula


Cheers, Martin 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Joseph Eisenberg
Other big peninsulas: Yucatán (in Mexico), Baja California, Patagonia(Argentina/Chile), Iberia (Spain and Portugal), the Malay peninsula (southern Thailand and Malaysia), and Korea.

Most of Arabia could be considered a very large peninsula as well.

Certainly these are different than the node that defines the end of a cape or headland or point, though it can be harder to define the landward limit of a peninsula.

I’d suggest encouraging mappers to use a node in the center of a large peninsula, as is done for continents and seas, rather than trying to map it as an area.
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:47 AM Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:


sent from a phone

On 2. Jan 2019, at 00:14, Dave Swarthout <[hidden email]> wrote:

The state of Florida is a peninsula as is India, at least by someone's definition.


also a significant part of Italy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Peninsula


Cheers, Martin 
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
Thank you all for your feedback and please excuse my late reply.

On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 at 22:42, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I have concerns about the definition of peninsula that you've used "a piece of land nearly surrounded by water and connected to a larger land area by an isthmus, that is a narrow strip of land"
>
> I did see that definition, but most definitions of peninsula that I have found don't mention the "narrow strip of land" eg peninsula:  A piece of land projecting into water from a larger land mass; cape: A piece or point of land, extending beyond the adjacent coast into a sea or lake; a promontory; a headland.

I originally included the requirement for an isthmus in order to have
a clear differentiation from capes, as the broader definition of
peninsulas without the requirement for an isthmus overlaps with the
(broader) definition of capes, see e.g. Merriam-Webster:

'a point or extension of land jutting out into water as a peninsula or
as a projecting point'

However, it seems that natural=cape has mainly been used for costal
extreme points, so we still have a differentiation, which hopefully is
clear and objective enough.

I've updated the proposal page accordingly.

Regards, Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 at 01:44, Joseph Eisenberg
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
I’d suggest encouraging mappers to use a node in the center of a large
peninsula, as is done for continents and seas, rather than trying to
map it as an area.

I've already added this comment in section Tagging:

'If it is unclear where the peninsula begins on the side where it is
connected to the larger land mass, it is recommended to not map it as
an area because of lack of verifiability.'

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Markus-5
On Saturday 05 January 2019, Markus wrote:
>
> I originally included the requirement for an isthmus in order to have
> a clear differentiation from capes, as the broader definition of
> peninsulas without the requirement for an isthmus overlaps with the
> (broader) definition of capes, see e.g. Merriam-Webster:
>
> [...]

To make this clear once again since this continues to be forgotten:  The
meaning of tags in OSM does not necessarily have anything to do with
the culture specific definition of the terms used for key and value
from some dictionary.  natural=cape means what it is used for in OSM
and this - at least until

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3452

had nothing even remotely to do with peninsulas.  This meaning is
described on the wiki (and indeed i tried to make it reflect the actual
use):

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=cape

These are typical major capes:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/32532727
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2510985983
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2098928265
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4727612495
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/2696775247

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Markus-5
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 13:08, Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> To make this clear once again since this continues to be forgotten:  The
> meaning of tags in OSM does not necessarily have anything to do with
> the culture specific definition of the terms used for key and value
> from some dictionary.

I'm aware of this. I just wanted to be be sure that i don't introduce
a tag that overlaps with the definition of another OSM tag – in this
case natural=cape. But as natural=cape has almost exclusively been
used for costal extreme points, there doesn't seem to be an overlap,
even without the requirement of an isthmus.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Daniel Koć
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
W dniu 05.01.2019 o 13:06, Christoph Hormann pisze:

> natural=cape means what it is used for in OSM
> and this - at least until
>
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3452
>
> had nothing even remotely to do with peninsulas.  This meaning is
> described on the wiki (and indeed i tried to make it reflect the actual
> use):
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=cape


Sorry, but "piece of land" at the very heart of definition clearly
suggests area rather than node and using areas are allowed for this type
of object. In fact at high zoom level areas are basic, while nodes work
only as an approximation on lower zoom levels. You would not fit entire
Space Center if Cape Canaveral was really a node, for example. It can
only be viewed as a node when looking at the Florida scale.

All the peninsula/cape/etc. distinction is blurry "by design", because
it's how human tries to name/use the natural space, which is not
discrete in many cases:

"Peninsulas are not always named as such; one can also be a headland,
cape, island promontory, bill, point, or spit."

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsula ]

We can just set some conventions, just like we do for stream/river or
monument/memorial.


--
"I see dead people" [Sixth Sense]



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Markus-5
On Saturday 05 January 2019, Markus wrote:
>
> I'm aware of this. I just wanted to be be sure that i don't introduce
> a tag that overlaps with the definition of another OSM tag – in this
> case natural=cape. But as natural=cape has almost exclusively been
> used for costal extreme points, there doesn't seem to be an overlap,
> even without the requirement of an isthmus.

Yes, de facto use of natural=cape was at least until recently for a very
narrow set of features.  And it would be good for data quality if that
would stay this way.  Therefore it is good if there is an alternative
in the form of natural=peninsula that can be used by mappers who want
to map something that might be called a 'cape' or some similar term in
a different language but that is not a natural=cape for OSM.

Accordingly it would be good if the suggestion is not: Use natural=cape
for capes and natural=peninsula for peninsulas but if there is an
discerning abstract definition that is language independent.

As written on the wiki natural=cape is essentially:

* seen from water: landmark at the coast to circumnavigate
* seen from land: coastal extreme point on land in a certain direction

What you will probably need to consider is how to distinguish
natural=peninula from named parts of the coast or named coastal areas
and if you want to include more specific coastal land forms like spits.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Daniel Koć

For understanding of the Florida physical geography - Cape Canaveral is
located here

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4887735121

USGS topos identify another cape - unmapped in OSM - slightly northwest
called the 'False Cape' (somewhat generic term for capes that are
likely mistaken for the real thing from the sea) near here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5316727559

The area Cape Canaveral AFS is built on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7384620

is called Canaveral Peninsula (unmapped in OSM - see USGS topos as well)
which is part of Merritt Island.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Janko Mihelić
I think we need to map peninsulas in three ways, as nodes, areas, and ways.

Areas when the land border is obvious. Nodes for little ones, when you don't have time to draw an area and the shape of the peninsula is obvious. Then there are ways, when the peninsula is huge, or when the land border isn't obvious, like the Italian peninsula or the Peninsula of India. I made a proposal for mapping peninsulas as ways:


Janko

On Sat, Jan 5, 2019, 23:10 Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:

For understanding of the Florida physical geography - Cape Canaveral is
located here

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/4887735121

USGS topos identify another cape - unmapped in OSM - slightly northwest
called the 'False Cape' (somewhat generic term for capes that are
likely mistaken for the real thing from the sea) near here:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5316727559

The area Cape Canaveral AFS is built on

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7384620

is called Canaveral Peninsula (unmapped in OSM - see USGS topos as well)
which is part of Merritt Island.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 at 22:46, Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Accordingly it would be good if the suggestion is not: Use natural=cape
> for capes and natural=peninsula for peninsulas but if there is an
> discerning abstract definition that is language independent.
>
> As written on the wiki natural=cape is essentially:
>
> * seen from water: landmark at the coast to circumnavigate
> * seen from land: coastal extreme point on land in a certain direction

Couldn't 'a point to circumnavigate' lead to confusion because
peninsulas needs to be circumnavigated too? Isn't the current
distinction clear enough?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:natural%3Dpeninsula#See_also

> What you will probably need to consider is how to distinguish
> natural=peninula from named parts of the coast or named coastal areas

Isn't this clear by definition? The current definition of
natural=peninsula is 'a piece of land nearly surrounded by water or
projecting into water from a larger land mass' while a coastal area is
longish.

> and if you want to include more specific coastal land forms like spits.

Good point! It might be better to tag spits separately (natural=spit
seems obvious), as they differ from peninsulas quite a lot with regard
to their shape.

Should i also propose tags for coastal areas and spits?

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Markus-5
Hi,

On 01.01.19 16:59, Markus wrote:
> Thanks for your comments so far! I've changed the proposed tag to
> natural=peninsula:

It would be great if you could make it clear that the tag should be used
for *small* peninsulas (peninsulae?) only, and is not intended as a
vehicle to catalogue everything that technically is a peninsula.

I fear that people will otherwise with great diligence and fun tag
things like the "Iberian Peninsula" which will not be of any use and
just lead to more relation clutter. (Cf. discussion about bays.)

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Janko Mihelić
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 10:37, Janko Mihelić <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I think we need to map peninsulas in three ways, as nodes, areas, and ways.
>
> Areas when the land border is obvious. Nodes for little ones, when you don't have time to draw an area and the shape of the peninsula is obvious. Then there are ways, when the peninsula is huge, or when the land border isn't obvious, like the Italian peninsula or the Peninsula of India. I made a proposal for mapping peninsulas as ways:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Peninsula

I find it rather counter-intuitive to map a peninsula as a way.
Besides what you propose is rather an unclosed area than a way.

But the biggest problem – the unclear borders (and thus the lack of
verifiability) – remains the same.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula

Ture Pålsson-2
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
2019-01-09 10:35, Frederik Ramm wrote
:
> [ ... ]
> I fear that people will otherwise with great diligence and fun tag
> things like the "Iberian Peninsula" which will not be of any use and
> just lead to more relation clutter. (Cf. discussion about bays.)

I mentioned the discussion of bays to a friend, who immediately said "of
course areas with fuzzy boundaries should be mapped as a function that,
given a point, returns 0 if the point is certainly outside the area, 1
if it's certainly inside, and somewhere inbetween if it's in the fuzzy
bit!"

I'd rather not be the one to implement that, though... :-)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Markus-5
On Wednesday 09 January 2019, Markus wrote:
> >
> > * seen from water: landmark at the coast to circumnavigate
> > * seen from land: coastal extreme point on land in a certain
> > direction
>
> Couldn't 'a point to circumnavigate' lead to confusion because
> peninsulas needs to be circumnavigated too?

I don't know - that depends on how you want to define natural=peninsula.
In classic navigation you use landmarks at the coast to plot and verify
your course.  That is what is meant with the above.

> Isn't this clear by definition? The current definition of
> natural=peninsula is 'a piece of land nearly surrounded by water or
> projecting into water from a larger land mass' while a coastal area
> is longish.

As you can see the concept of 'nearly' is pretty vague here.  The
description for bays uses the term 'mostly' and look what this has led
to:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4681569
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/552099079
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8399350

So if you want natural=peninsula to mean something more specific
than 'some named land area at the coast' (like bay tagging on polygon
meanwhile just means 'some water area near the coast a mapper wanted to
label') you better try to make the definition somewhat clearer.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm

Am Mi., 9. Jan. 2019 um 10:36 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]>:
I fear that people will otherwise with great diligence and fun tag
things like the "Iberian Peninsula" which will not be of any use and
just lead to more relation clutter. (Cf. discussion about bays.)




while I would not advocate either for modelling the Iberian Peninsula with our current system (e.g. as multipolygon), I would like to express dissent on the motion it "would not be of any use". IMHO it clearly would be desirable to be able to map big "objects" like this in a smart way. WM has WP records for 120 languages for the Iberian Peninsula [1], there will be people interested in this, no? The only reasons I see for approving "small" peninsulas" but not big ones, are of technical nature (limitations of what we can model, and how expensive it is).

On a sidenote: the Iberian Peninsula is already mapped in OSM as a relation, and it is in Version 848 ;-)

Cheers,
Martin





_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Feature Proposal – RFC – natural=peninsula (Was: Feature Proposal – RFC – place=peninsula)

Frederik Ramm
Hi,

On 09.01.19 14:09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> The only reasons I see for
> approving "small" peninsulas" but not big ones, are of technical nature

Yes. People will create a new "multipolygon" or "boundary" relation
containing each and every way of the Spanish coastline for every
geographic feature they can think of. Ah, surely this is part of
"Eurasia". And of "Europe". And of "Spain". And of the "Iberian
Peninsula". And the water is the "Mediterranean Sea". And ... then when
you split a piece of coastline in Spain, you've edited 25 relations
spanning half the globe.

Granted, it's a technical shortcoming, but while this exists people
should respect it.

> On a sidenote: the Iberian Peninsula is already mapped in OSM as a
> relation, and it is in Version 848 ;-)

Must...resist...urge...to...delete...

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12345