Talk:Tag:place=archipelago
Regardless of the (un-approved) status of this tag it's obvious that we should have a supported archipelago tag. Archipelagos are not a very common feature globally but those few hundreds that we have are unique ecosystems and important to millions of people. On the history of this tag: There seems to have been a proposal years back but that din't pick up. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Archipelago --JaakkoH (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Complexity of archipelagos containing atolls
It is common for individual atolls to be made up of many small islands and tiny islets. Adding all these coastline ways to an archipelago multipolygon may be impractical. As an alternative, it may make sense to add the way enclosing the outer limit of the atoll's reef as a means of capturing the entire area of the atoll in a single member of the archipelago relation.
This has the disadvantage that the archipelago relation is no longer specific to the land area. But it has the advantage of keeping the relation simple enough to manage and edit. And, arguably, the submerged portions of atolls should always have been part of the archipelago.
--B1tw153 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
- Why not use
type=site+place=archipelagocontaining all theplace=*then? Thetype=multipolygon+place=archipelagocan be included as
perimeter
—— Kovposch (talk) 10:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)- I suppose using
type=siteas a super-relation might work, but I'd like to see better clarity about the use oftype=siteandtype=grouprelations in general. For example, I'm not sure it's decided whether the Great Lakes
Great Lakes should use type=grouportype=site. (Edit) For what it's worth, there are currently 1868 archipelago relations withtype=multipolygon, 44 withtype=cluster, 41 withtype=group, and 12 withtype=site. That's not to say that any of these are preferred, just an observation about current usage.
--B1tw153 (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)type=siteis a single dispersed feature, that must have a main feature tag. It's used whentype=multipolygoncan't describe the feature, due to 3D (site=parking) , or geometry type ( wind farmpower=plantofpower=generatorwind turbine points ) .type=cluster/type=groupis a collective identity that shouldn't have a feature tag. It has been well noted here that "Widely dispersed, named collections of islands are not always anplace=archipelago" . If it isn't one, it should usetype=cluster.
- For lakes, first of all,
natural=waterreally shouldn't be used on thetype=siteas that duplicates the individual lakes. Each of them already describes the land-cover properly. Duplicating the feature tag is only acceptable at most when used as atype=multipolygon) , similar to aplace=*in aboundary=administrative(they are actually different concepts) , oramenity=parkingin asite=parking(I supposesite=parkingwas proposed to not duplicate theamenity=parking; later onpower=planthas been used directly, however it has the reason of not having anotherpower=plantcenter point drawn for them) . In the opposition againsttype=cluster, there are ideas of anatural=lake_groupfeature as a counterpart toplace=archipelago, which can be used on atype=multipolygon.
I feel "lake group" is a more arbitrary and less established concept than archipelagos in geography. Unless there is more explanation, I findtype=clustermore appropriate for the Great Lakes.
For the topic at hand, the use oftype=sitewould be justified by data reasons, when atype=multipolygonis not maintainable.type=multipolygonwill remain the dominant and first choice forplace=archipelago, and it should continue to be used as a
—— Kovposch (talk) 12:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
- I suppose using