There is no consensus.
Personally I'm not in favour of the view that any body of water which is
tidal should be bounded by a way tagged as coastline.
Reasons for this
1) Ask any one who lives in say central London "do you live on the
coast" or do you live beside a river", most would I'm sure say beside a
river, so surely our data should reflect that. I think this probably is
what you mean by "seems more natural"
2) In part because the converse is not true, we bound large non tidal
water areas as coastline
3) If knowledge that a body of water is tidal is important it can be
tagged "tidal = yes"
David
------ Original Message ------
From: "Colin Smale" <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl>
To: "Talk-GB" <talk-gb@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: 28/08/2018 08:49:01
Subject: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers
That old chestnut again...
There seems to be an open discussion about how far up a river the
natural=coastline should go. The wiki suggests the coastline should be
the high water line going up to the tidal limit (often a lock or a wier)
but this can be a substantial distance inland. This is AIUI the general
scientific approach.
There has been some discussion in the past about letting the coastline
cut across the river at some convenient point, possibly because it
"looks better" or "seems more natural" or "is less work."
I looked at a few rivers along the south coast to see how they had been
tagged and it seems most have the coastline up to the tidal limit.
However the coastline around the mouth of the Dart has recently been
modified to cut across the mouth, and Salcombe Harbour is also mapped
this way.
Is there a consensus for a particular definition of "coastline" in tidal
estuaries? Should we try to keep a consistent paradigm, or doesn't it
matter?
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
