I just always saw it like this.
Continuing to breastfeed was simply a continuing of the status quo. I was not making any changes, apart from of course introducing solid food at about six months and drinks a bit after that, and I probably tended to expect more waiting when he got older if it wasn't immediately convenient to feed, which I wouldn't have done when he was tiny. Due to this or just age in general, the amount of feeds was naturally dwindling down - it wasn't obstructive to anything.
It was not as though we woke up on his first birthday and I said "I know! I'm going to continue to breastfeed." It just wasn't an active thing like that - in fact, quite the opposite. It would have been a conscious, active choice for me to initiate weaning and stop. Now, I don't know about anyone else's parenting, but for me, I quite like an "if it aint broke, don't fix it" mindset. Meaning that if I'm going to actively put effort in to change something, I need a fairly good reason to do so.
Introducing solids had a good reason - at about that age they start to need more nutrition and texture than milk for their growth and speech development. Introducing drinks was a convenience thing - I didn't always want to get a boob out in public when he was a bit thirsty. Potty training was useful in order to get rid of awful nappies. Etc etc - everything had a purpose. But I never really came up against a compelling reason to wean from breastfeeding. If I'd had enough, then I probably would have done, but I never got that fed up with it. The idea that other people find it a bit weird was never really very strong of a motivation. I have never been able to find any actual proof that it's harmful, unlike, say, using bottles for too long - which I would have weaned from much earlier, if he'd been using regularly. I wasn't particularly worried that he would do it forever, because I'd heard that children tend to stop when their milk teeth fall out, although usually a few years before.