Talk:Tag:natural=cape

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Cape, peninsula, or point(e)

natural=cape is too much of a catchall. A cape != peninsula != headland != point. We can do better. For example, here is a peninsula which is not a cape:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-46.05743&lon=166.68413&zoom=15

Suggest natural=peninsula for that instead.

A cape is generally taken to be the furthest-most point you have to sail around to get past some bit of convex coastline. Smaller headlands, points, and peninsulas within bays or lakes don't fit. Here's an example of a point (Station Pt.) which is not a cape:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-48.022771&lon=166.608443&zoom=18

Suggest natural=headland for that instead.

-- Hamish 26 August 2012
I also agree, and the recent change made today (to remove peninsulas in favor of only capes) is indesirable'. Capes are a small subset of peninsulas or frequently only a small tipping part of a peninsula.
Capes are basicaly just local nodes near the coastline (generally placed at the most elevated point on land where you have a viewing panorama over sea on more than 180 degrees), peninsulas can cover very large areas (sometimes larger than a full country, e.g. the Arabic peninsula), and will include mountains, forests, farmlands and cities, possibly also rivers and all their bordering beaches or maritime cliffs, and a peninsula will have several capes (e.g. the Arabic peninsula again with at least the two capes on the Indian Ocean at entry of the Red Sea and at entry of the Persic Gulf, or the 5 main capes to the west of Britanny in France, where Britanny is also a peninsula of the European continent, or the multiples capes around the Italian peninsula!).... Peninsulas can have subpeninsulas (here again several examples around the Arabic peninsula, Italy, Britanny). Capes can also exist outside any peninsula (e.g. the Cape in South Africa).
Generally, peninsulas are hard to represent on map as they are not precisely located and form a hierarchy. But capes are precisely locatable at specific elevated points near the coast line where you have the maximum angle of observation of the sea, and capes do not form any hierarchy, they are isolated (capes are very frequently the location where lighthouses and radars are installed).
As well the undesrired suppression of fjords (which can be also assimilated to rias and abers), which are not bays, but particular forms of valleys formed by a river or a former glacier flowing from mountains. Bays are not valleys but are just inundated concavities of costal lands (which may include one or several river mouths: bays are then generally much largers and form a hierarchy, unlike fjords that are precisely located along a river/glacier flow). Bays must be inundated by sea water, otherwise they are just lakes/ponds. — Verdy_p (talk)

Rendering

Should capes be rendered in the map, if so how? Many maps that I've seen which have the coast have named capes next to the coastline, for example: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/topo/honduras/omoa-honduras-50k-2563ii-1983.pdf In this one capes are named as "Punta de (Name)" since it's in spanish. Should the OSM map have capes and points rendered as names or as an icon similar to Peaks are? I think they should because they are used as placemarks in coastal areas, especially in less developed coasts where the only way of identifying a specific place is by the name of a beach, river mouth, or cape. They're also points of interest for some tourist. Thoughts?