Trying to tag a "point" landform on a lakeshore - it appears there's no "natural=" tag for it. A few examples I've found just use a named locality. Is that standard? Thx in advance... asked 21 Mar '17, 05:34  GregRetro edited 21 Mar '17, 05:35 |
One Answer:
Okay - I've tagged them as capes. Thx for the help. answered 21 Mar '17, 17:00 GregRetro |
You say, "Before you ask - cape and headland would not be appropriate for small "point" landforms."
Why not? I use natural=cape all the time to tag a named "point" on a lake or the ocean. Some big rivers in Alaska also have named prominences, points on a bend or an island. If the goal is to make such a "point" findable and perhaps even rendered, I don't see why you object to its use.
Can you perhaps provide an example of your problem?
Cheers,
Dave
Thx Dave - I'm just going by what the wiki defines a cape to be - which is also the accepted term in the cartographic world in general. If the tag definition (and real world definition) makes no difference, I'll go ahead and use =cape. (I'm mapping Bear Lake in N-C British Columbia, SE of Skeena and Sustut confluence)
It's hard to know which tag definitions are set in stone, and which ones are much more loose... a named point on a river being a good example. That's just NOT a cape... but I don't see any good alternatives, so I can't fault your usage. I'm just glad not to have to use =locality, as the lack of rendering at multiple layers is problematic.
Thx again...
GR
Honestly, the BEST solution would be
name=*
natural=landform
landform=point
IMNSHO...
Even after reading this question, I still have almost no idea what you mean by "natural=landform". Can you given an example on osm.org?
Gah... Sorry about that - I misread an article on the wiki.
No such thing as natural=landform. Obviously.