Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[David Groom]

-- Original Message --
From: "Christoph Hormann" 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 


Sent: 07/08/2020 08:27:23
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war



I concur with a lot of your observations and like you i had essentially
given up on the idea of the coastline representing meaningful
information in the long term.  But considering this is a very sad
conclusion which essentially means OpenStreetMap failing in its primary
goal in the single most fundamental mapping task of the planet, namely
the distinction between ocean and land, i am trying my best here to
work towards a consensus - no matter how slim the chances are from my
perspective.

I agree




 1) We should establish an agreed "OSM Coastline position", which I
 suggest would approximate to the position of the coastline on 1
 January 2020.

 2) Any edit which moved the position of the coastline by more than
 20Km from the established position should be classed as vandalism,
 unless such movement had previously been agreed by the community.


That is a practically feasible approach but it would form a major
beachhead in abolishing the principle of verifiablility in
OpenStreetMap in favor of adopting the major consensus narrative of the
OSM community as the reality to map rather than the intersubjectively
verifiable reality.

To put it bluntly:  In your scenario if the OSM community agreed on
ignoring the physical reality mapping of the coastline could depart
arbitrarily far from said physical reality.
But we are only having this discussion because there are places where 
the coastline boundary has no "physical reality".


We de facto already have the situation that if edits are contested the
status quo is the fallback.  And more strongly formalizing that in case
of the coastline could be a good idea.  But to forgo having a
verifiable definition of the coastline tag supported by consensus is
not a good idea IMO.
I am quite happy for my proposal to be an interim solution until there 
is a "verifiable definition of the coastline tag supported by consensus"


I would however modify my last point (2) to be

(2) In the case of disagreement, any edit which moved the position of the 
coastline by more than 20Km from the established position should prima facie be 
classed as vandalism, unless such movement had previously been agreed by the 
OSM community.

This modification primarily allows for the continuing improvement of the PGS 
import without needlessly seeking prior approval in each instance

David



Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 07 August 2020, Colin Smale wrote:
>
> The word "ocean" is already subjective... [...]

Oh please.  Not again another attempt to deflect into a discussion of 
language semantics when i am clearly not talking about the word ocean 
but about the abstract physical and language independent concept of the 
world ocean as the main reservoir of the global water cycle.

The distinction between a river and the world ocean is real and a 
fundamental aspect of our scientific understanding of the geography of 
this planet.  That digital maps have - based on the precedent set by 
Google - almost universally ignored this fact does not change it.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-08-07 11:18, Christoph Hormann wrote:

> On Friday 07 August 2020, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
>> The word "ocean" is already subjective... [...]
> 
> Oh please.  Not again another attempt to deflect into a discussion of 
> language semantics

Completely the other way around. I hope to remove the dependence on
terms subject to interpretation in favour of relatively
non-controversial terms such as "water," "foreshore" and "land." 

> The distinction between a river and the world ocean is real and a 
> fundamental aspect of our scientific understanding of the geography of 
> this planet.

But the big "grey area" where a given point could be considered either
or both (or something else entirely like "estuary", "salt marsh" or
"mangrove") is what we are discussing here. A taxonomy requiring that
each point is in exactly one of {land,river,ocean} is not viable for OSM
because (around the edges) it requires specialist knowledge to
determine, it depends on which "specialist" you take as a reference and
is not verifiable by the average mapper. 

> That digital maps have - based on the precedent set by 
> Google - almost universally ignored this fact does not change it.

You say Google have "ignored" this. What makes you think that we can
find a solution where Google haven't?___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

Aug 7, 2020, 11:36 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl:

>
> On 2020-08-07 11:18, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>
>
>> That digital maps have - based on the precedent set by 
>>  Google - almost universally ignored this fact does not change it.
>>  
>>
> You say Google have "ignored" this. What makes you think that we can find a 
> solution where Google haven't?
>
This is an absurd argument, we did plenty of things where Google and Google 
Maps failed.

Also, it is entirely possible that ad/car centric Google Maps simply have not 
attempted this.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-08-07 12:04, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:

> Aug 7, 2020, 11:36 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: 
> 
> On 2020-08-07 11:18, Christoph Hormann wrote: 
> 
> That digital maps have - based on the precedent set by 
> Google - almost universally ignored this fact does not change it. 
> 
> You say Google have "ignored" this. What makes you think that we can find a 
> solution where Google haven't?

This is an absurd argument, we did plenty of things where Google and
Google Maps failed. 

This is not an argument at all, it's a question. Empirical evidence
would suggest we have also not yet found a solution, so we are in no
position to gloat about this. 

Currently we are still in the dick-waving stage and not converging on a
consensus that will be usable by most mappers and data consumers. 

Let's start with a hypothesis - a certain tagging model which we expect
will be good enough (to start with). Then check how that fits against
real-world situations, make incremental refinements to the model, and
iterate. Perfection is the enemy of the good! If the result of this
discussion is to be of any value at all, it must fit with most of the
world, both the geographical realities and the human/cultural aspects.
Getting too deep into the details too early is bound to fail.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-08-07 09:27, Christoph Hormann wrote:

>> I concur with a lot of your observations and like you i had essentially 
>> given up on the idea of the coastline representing meaningful 
>> information in the long term.  But considering this is a very sad 
>> conclusion which essentially means OpenStreetMap failing in its primary 
>> goal in the single most fundamental mapping task of the planet, namely 
>> the distinction between ocean and land, i am trying my best here to 
>> work towards a consensus - no matter how slim the chances are from my 
>> perspective.

The word "ocean" is already subjective... We need fundamentally to
distinguish between land, foreshore and water. These are objective there
should be not much argument, except for maybe which low/high water line
to use (mean springs or whatever). What the various areas are CALLED is
the subject here, and clearly one man's coastline is another man's
riverbank. But the fundamental pair of lines, creating the three zones
(land, foreshore and water) are required in any case. 

By including a definition in OSM of the transition from river to
estuary, or from estuary to sea, we are actually "tagging for the
renderer" because we are removing the choice from the data consumer and
forcing a particular paradigm on the (OSM)-world. We have proven time
and time again that it is impossible to synthesise a compromise that
suits everyone - it just ends up suiting no-one.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Yves]

Would it be worth considering adding other tags with area limits to the 
water/land polygons computation?
Yves ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

I concur with a lot of your observations and like you i had essentially 
given up on the idea of the coastline representing meaningful 
information in the long term.  But considering this is a very sad 
conclusion which essentially means OpenStreetMap failing in its primary 
goal in the single most fundamental mapping task of the planet, namely 
the distinction between ocean and land, i am trying my best here to 
work towards a consensus - no matter how slim the chances are from my 
perspective.

> 1) We should establish an agreed "OSM Coastline position", which I
> suggest would approximate to the position of the coastline on 1
> January 2020.
>
> 2) Any edit which moved the position of the coastline by more than
> 20Km from the established position should be classed as vandalism,
> unless such movement had previously been agreed by the community.

That is a practically feasible approach but it would form a major 
beachhead in abolishing the principle of verifiablility in 
OpenStreetMap in favor of adopting the major consensus narrative of the 
OSM community as the reality to map rather than the intersubjectively 
verifiable reality.

To put it bluntly:  In your scenario if the OSM community agreed on 
ignoring the physical reality mapping of the coastline could depart 
arbitrarily far from said physical reality.

We de facto already have the situation that if edits are contested the 
status quo is the fallback.  And more strongly formalizing that in case 
of the coastline could be a good idea.  But to forgo having a 
verifiable definition of the coastline tag supported by consensus is 
not a good idea IMO.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[David Groom]

I've so far stayed out of this discussion because my final thoughts on 
the matter will I am sure be contentious.


In no order of importance my thoughts are:

1) the idea of basing a the limit on coastline on levels of salinity or 
average water flows makes as little sense as trying to specify that the 
"landuse = forest" tag can only be used when there are a specific number 
of trees growing in a particular area.


2)  yes the wiki says coastline should be based on the Mean High Water 
Spring, but I've long argued that for instance no one in London would 
say they lived on the coast even though the River Thames is tidal 
upstream of the city.  Hence the border between coastline and water body 
should be downstream of the tidal influence and is based on "a 
reasonable estimation of where an observer might suggest the river ends, 
and the sea begins".  Such an estimation is imprecise, not subject to 
verification, and different observers will have different opinions - get 
over it.  As in point (1)  different observers will have different 
opinions on where a "forest" ends and "scrubland" starts.


3) Due to the needs of the rendering process we have long established 
that ways tagged "natural = coastline"  are a special case.


4) We have existing tags for "tidal = yes" and "estuary=yes", 
"admin_level = ?" which means it is unnecessary for the coastline tag to 
be used as a proxy for these.


5)  The discussion on what the tag "natural = coastline" actually means 
has been discussed for so long that it appears almost insolvable.


Given the above.

A) In view of all the points above it is not possible to write a concise 
definition of what the tag natural = coastline" represents.


B) Until January 2020 we had a reasonably broad agreement on where the 
coastline should be.  Though I recognise, perhaps more than most who 
have contributed to this thread, that there are still are large number 
of ways ( particularly in the more sparsely populated areas of the 
world, or where the OSM community is not large)  that are unchanged from 
the position they were placed in by the PGS imports in 2006.


After much thought my, probably contentious, view  is:

1) We should establish an agreed "OSM Coastline position", which I 
suggest would approximate to the position of the coastline on 1 January 
2020.


2) Any edit which moved the position of the coastline by more than 20Km 
from the established position should be classed as vandalism, unless 
such movement had previously been agreed by the community.


David
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

Muralito,

it would be very useful if you could address the request i have made 
several times now.  I will not engage in a discussion on the other 
lines you mean to open here because it is non-productive from my 
perspective.  It could take us hours to determine the smallest common 
denominator on cultural and cartographic subjects and it would still be 
highly doubtful if a discussion on that fields would lead to any 
productive outcome.  So if you are interested in establishing a 
consensus on this matter please try to follow my request.

If there is anyone else from the local community who would be willing to 
formulate a generic set of rules based on physical geography criteria 
about the natural=coastline placement that reflects your local view as 
i have explained please do so - even if you do so in Spanish that would 
be very helpful.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[muralito]

- Mensaje original -
> De: "Joseph Eisenberg" 
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Enviados: Miércoles, 5 de Agosto 2020 19:46:06
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> Here's another issue I would like mural...@montevideo.com.uy to address:
> In Venezuela the second largest city is on a body of water called "Lago de
> Maracaibo":

> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11334852

> As mentioned in Wikipedia, local Venezolanos often refer to this as a lake
> (lago), not an estuary or bay:

> Lake Maracaibo ( Spanish : Lago de Maracaibo , pronounced [ˈlaɣo ðe 
> maɾaˈkajβo]
> ( listen ) ) is a large brackish tidal bay (or tidal estuary ) in Venezuela 
> and
> an "inlet of the Caribbean Sea ". [1] [2] [3] [4] It is sometimes considered a
> lake rather than a bay or lagoon . [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] It
> is connected to the Gulf of Venezuela by Tablazo Strait , which is 5.5
> kilometres (3.4 mi) wide at the northern end.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Maracaibo

> So, does this mean that Lago de Maracaibo could be mapped as natural=water or
> waterway=riverbank instead, if local mappers feel it is a lake rather than a
> tidal bay / estuary?

> (It is currently mapped with natural=coastline and with a relation tagged as
> natural=bay, like most other similar features in OpenStreetMap, with the
> exception of the Rio de la Plata)

I have never been there, but from the aerial photos it is clearly on the 
continent and there is nothing oceanic, despite having communication with the 
sea, so it should not be labeled natural = coastline in the same way that the 
Great Lakes or other large endorheic lakes no matter how big they are. In fact 
apparently some renderers adapted and if they draw the polygons natural = water 
at low zoom levels. 

I'm convinced that the problem is the renderer, not the data. If the map shows 
what people expect they do not look the details and do not find the errors in 
the data, like this case, that a possible error goes unnoticed.

It would be one of the many examples where, in my opinion, the coastline is 
poorly located in OSM, but I don't know what is the position of the Venezuelan 
OSM community.

I also asked for other places like Elbe River, or River Crouch, where the 
natural=coastline is placed more than 26 km from the sea. Very weird. This is 
the opposite problem in the data, but people does not notice because in small 
zooms the renderer seems to simplifies the coastline details, and this 
coastline is not even a pixel in zoom 5 or 6.



> – Joseph Eisenberg

> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:52 AM Alan Mackie < aamac...@gmail.com > wrote:



> > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 01:34, < mural...@montevideo.com.uy > wrote:



> >> - Mensaje original -
> >> > De: "Joseph Eisenberg" < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com >
> >> > Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" < 
> >> > tagging@openstreetmap.org >
> >> > Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 16:56:31
> >> > Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> >> > The graphics in this document are mainly models of current flow, rather 
> >> > than
> >> > actual measurements, but it is mentioned that the average current flow,
> >> > neglecting wind, is only 0.1 m/s in the Rio de la Plata. Since winds of 
> >> > 5 m/s
> >> > are routine according to the paper, the currents vary strongly based on 
> >> > winds
> >> > and tides.
> >> > See for example the figura on pages 26 to 37 which show the modeled 
> >> > variation
> >> > with different wind direction. I don't see a modeling of the affect of 
> >> > tides -
> >> > this appears to be the average current over the tidal cycle? But I admit 
> >> > I have
> >> > not visited this area.

>>> Sure its a model, but the model is validated by drifting bouys, as you can 
>>> check
> >> in page 37.
> >> i just translated here.
>>> "The drift buoy trajectories launched in the summer of 2003 and reported by
>>> Piola et al (2003) showed, in consistency with the modeled solutions,
>>> relatively low average speeds (20-30 cm / s) in the middle part of the river
>>> and higher speeds in the outer sector, mainly towards the Uruguayan coast,
> >> where they exceeded 60 cm / s (Fig. 33)."

> >> > My main objection is the inclusion of Bahia Samborombon in the estuary. 
> >> > The
> >> > charts and satellite images show very little influence from river water 
> >> > i

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Here's another issue I would like mural...@montevideo.com.uy to address:

In Venezuela the second largest city is on a body of water called "Lago de
Maracaibo":

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11334852

As mentioned in Wikipedia, local Venezolanos often refer to this as a lake
(lago), not an estuary or bay:

*Lake Maracaibo* (Spanish
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language>: *Lago
de Maracaibo*, pronounced [ˈlaɣo ðe maɾaˈkajβo]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Spanish> ([image: About this sound]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ES-pe_-_Lago_de_Maracaibo.ogg>listen
<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/ES-pe_-_Lago_de_Maracaibo.ogg>
)) is a large brackish <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brackish> tidal bay
(or tidal estuary <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estuary>) in Venezuela
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuela> and an "inlet of the Caribbean Sea
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean_Sea>".[1]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Maracaibo#cite_note-1>[2]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Maracaibo#cite_note-2>[3]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Maracaibo#cite_note-3>[4]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Maracaibo#cite_note-4> It is sometimes
considered a lake <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake> rather than a bay
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay> or lagoon
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagoon>.[5]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Maracaibo#cite_note-Murphy-5>[6]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Maracaibo#cite_note-NASA-6>[7]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Maracaibo#cite_note-Limnol-7>[8]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Maracaibo#cite_note-Publishing2010-8>[9]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Maracaibo#cite_note-QuinnWoodward2015-9>
[10] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Maracaibo#cite_note-10>[11]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Maracaibo#cite_note-11>[12]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Maracaibo#cite_note-12>[13]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Maracaibo#cite_note-13> It is connected
to the Gulf of Venezuela <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Venezuela>
 by Tablazo Strait <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablazo_Strait>, which is
5.5 kilometres (3.4 mi) wide at the northern end.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Maracaibo

So, does this mean that Lago de Maracaibo could be mapped as natural=water
or waterway=riverbank instead, if local mappers feel it is a lake rather
than a tidal bay / estuary?

(It is currently mapped with natural=coastline and with a relation tagged
as natural=bay, like most other similar features in OpenStreetMap, with the
exception of the Rio de la Plata)

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 2:52 AM Alan Mackie  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 01:34,  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> - Mensaje original -
>> > De: "Joseph Eisenberg" 
>> > Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>
>> > Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 16:56:31
>> > Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
>>
>> > The graphics in this document are mainly models of current flow,
rather than
>> > actual measurements, but it is mentioned that the average current flow,
>> > neglecting wind, is only 0.1 m/s in the Rio de la Plata. Since winds
of 5 m/s
>> > are routine according to the paper, the currents vary strongly based
on winds
>> > and tides.
>> > See for example the figura on pages 26 to 37 which show the modeled
variation
>> > with different wind direction. I don't see a modeling of the affect of
tides -
>> > this appears to be the average current over the tidal cycle? But I
admit I have
>> > not visited this area.
>>
>> Sure its a model, but the model is validated by drifting bouys, as you
can check in page 37.
>> i just translated here.
>> "The drift buoy trajectories launched in the summer of 2003 and reported
by Piola et al (2003) showed, in consistency with the modeled solutions,
relatively low average speeds (20-30 cm / s) in the middle part of the
river and higher speeds in the outer sector, mainly towards the Uruguayan
coast, where they exceeded 60 cm / s (Fig. 33)."
>>
>> > My main objection is the inclusion of Bahia Samborombon in the
estuary. The
>> > charts and satellite images show very little influence from river
water in that
>> > area, as well as in the section of coast east of Montevideo.
>>
>> You are misreading the imagery. What generaly available imagery shows in
this area is a change of colour, which is dark brown to the NW, and more
clear to the SE. This is caused for the change of turbidity, located near
the 5m isob

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Alan Mackie]

On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 at 01:34,  wrote:

>
>
> - Mensaje original -
> > De: "Joseph Eisenberg" 
> > Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> > Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 16:56:31
> > Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
>
> > The graphics in this document are mainly models of current flow, rather
> than
> > actual measurements, but it is mentioned that the average current flow,
> > neglecting wind, is only 0.1 m/s in the Rio de la Plata. Since winds of
> 5 m/s
> > are routine according to the paper, the currents vary strongly based on
> winds
> > and tides.
> > See for example the figura on pages 26 to 37 which show the modeled
> variation
> > with different wind direction. I don't see a modeling of the affect of
> tides -
> > this appears to be the average current over the tidal cycle? But I admit
> I have
> > not visited this area.
>
> Sure its a model, but the model is validated by drifting bouys, as you can
> check in page 37.
> i just translated here.
> "The drift buoy trajectories launched in the summer of 2003 and reported
> by Piola et al (2003) showed, in consistency with the modeled solutions,
> relatively low average speeds (20-30 cm / s) in the middle part of the
> river and higher speeds in the outer sector, mainly towards the Uruguayan
> coast, where they exceeded 60 cm / s (Fig. 33)."
>
> > My main objection is the inclusion of Bahia Samborombon in the estuary.
> The
> > charts and satellite images show very little influence from river water
> in that
> > area, as well as in the section of coast east of Montevideo.
>
> You are misreading the imagery. What generaly available imagery shows in
> this area is a change of colour, which is dark brown to the NW, and more
> clear to the SE. This is caused for the change of turbidity, located near
> the 5m isobath.
>
> The figures in both the document linked by muralito and the one previously
linked by Andy seem to show that flow outside of the line from Montevideo
to Punta Piedras is largely dominated by wind and ocean conditions and not
by the river flow. Visible sediment in the water was discounted earlier for
defining outer limits as it often persists far into areas clearly
considered ocean (see Christoph's example off the coast of China), but
photos showing the sediment also show it starting to disperse after this
point. Some wind directions seem to dominate the flow even further
upstream.

As this discussion continues I think this looks more and more like a river
that drains into a sheltered bay than one that drains directly into the
ocean.

> – Joseph Eisenberg
>
> > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:42 PM < mural...@montevideo.com.uy > wrote:
>
> >> ----- Mensaje original -
> >> > De: "Kevin Kenny" < kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com >
> >> > Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org >
> >> > Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 16:28:55
> >> > Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
>
> >> > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:18 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com >
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >> These rules would exclude the lower Rio De La Plata and the lower
> part of the
> >> >> mouth of the Saint Lawrence river, as well as other wide estuaries
> where winds
> >> >> and tides have more influence on surface water flow than does the
> discharge of
> >> >> the river. It would not prevent mapping the Hudson mouth at the
> southern tip of
> >> >> Manhattan, because the flow is strong all the way to New York
> Harbor, if I
> >> >> understand correctly.
>
> >> > The Hudson definitely reverses flow. One of its names among the First
> Peoples
> >> > translates to 'the river flows both ways.' The division in the flow
> lies less
> >> > in the fraction of the tidal cycle than the speed of the current. It
> flows
> >> > 'upstream' for half the time, 'downstream' for half, but the
> downstream current
> >> > is considerably swifter.
>
> >> Rio de la Plata would not be excluded, as you can read in the document
> [8] i
> >> linked in my first mail, for example, see some graphics of the flow of
> the
> >> river in page 25.
> >> [8] DINAMA. Salinidad
> >>
> https://www.dinama.gub.uy/oan/documentos/uploads/2016/12/patrones_circulacion.pdf
>
> >> Regaards,
> >> M.
>
> >>
> ---

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[muralito]

- Mensaje original -
> De: "Joseph Eisenberg" 
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 16:56:31
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> The graphics in this document are mainly models of current flow, rather than
> actual measurements, but it is mentioned that the average current flow,
> neglecting wind, is only 0.1 m/s in the Rio de la Plata. Since winds of 5 m/s
> are routine according to the paper, the currents vary strongly based on winds
> and tides.
> See for example the figura on pages 26 to 37 which show the modeled variation
> with different wind direction. I don't see a modeling of the affect of tides -
> this appears to be the average current over the tidal cycle? But I admit I 
> have
> not visited this area.

Sure its a model, but the model is validated by drifting bouys, as you can 
check in page 37.
i just translated here.
"The drift buoy trajectories launched in the summer of 2003 and reported by 
Piola et al (2003) showed, in consistency with the modeled solutions, 
relatively low average speeds (20-30 cm / s) in the middle part of the river 
and higher speeds in the outer sector, mainly towards the Uruguayan coast, 
where they exceeded 60 cm / s (Fig. 33)."

> My main objection is the inclusion of Bahia Samborombon in the estuary. The
> charts and satellite images show very little influence from river water in 
> that
> area, as well as in the section of coast east of Montevideo.

You are misreading the imagery. What generaly available imagery shows in this 
area is a change of colour, which is dark brown to the NW, and more clear to 
the SE. This is caused for the change of turbidity, located near the 5m isobath.

> – Joseph Eisenberg

> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:42 PM < mural...@montevideo.com.uy > wrote:

>> - Mensaje original -
>> > De: "Kevin Kenny" < kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com >
>> > Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" < 
>> > tagging@openstreetmap.org >
>> > Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 16:28:55
>> > Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

>> > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:18 PM Joseph Eisenberg < 
>> > joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com >
>> > wrote:

>> >> These rules would exclude the lower Rio De La Plata and the lower part of 
>> >> the
>> >> mouth of the Saint Lawrence river, as well as other wide estuaries where 
>> >> winds
>> >> and tides have more influence on surface water flow than does the 
>> >> discharge of
>> >> the river. It would not prevent mapping the Hudson mouth at the southern 
>> >> tip of
>> >> Manhattan, because the flow is strong all the way to New York Harbor, if I
>> >> understand correctly.

>> > The Hudson definitely reverses flow. One of its names among the First 
>> > Peoples
>> > translates to 'the river flows both ways.' The division in the flow lies 
>> > less
>> > in the fraction of the tidal cycle than the speed of the current. It flows
>> > 'upstream' for half the time, 'downstream' for half, but the downstream 
>> > current
>> > is considerably swifter.

>> Rio de la Plata would not be excluded, as you can read in the document [8] i
>> linked in my first mail, for example, see some graphics of the flow of the
>> river in page 25.
>> [8] DINAMA. Salinidad
>> https://www.dinama.gub.uy/oan/documentos/uploads/2016/12/patrones_circulacion.pdf

>> Regaards,
>> M.

>> ---

>> Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin 
>> costo.

>> Informate si aplicás aquí.

>> mvdfactura.uy

>> ---

>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



---

Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin costo.

Informate si aplicás aquí.

mvdfactura.uy

---



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-08-04 22:46, Paul Allen wrote:

> On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 19:54, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote: 
> 
>> Similarly, should Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay be mapped as 
>> natural=water + water=river? These are also estuaries.
> 
> I suspect the answer is contained within the question.  We have the words 
> "ocean" and "estuary" because we consider them to be different things.  We 
> might bicker a little about where the dividing line is but understand them as 
> being different concepts.  Where does the coastline end?  At the start of 
> the estuary.

In my perception they can overlap.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Aug 2020, at 18:30, Colin Smale  wrote:
> 
> The status of the Gulf of Taranto is disputable as it appears to have no 
> basis in international law.


it is indeed disputed by the UK, the US and maybe others, but according to the 
Italian baseline it is completely in Italy, that was my point. AFAIK in the 
border dataset that the EU distributes it is also completely in Italy, even 
when the UK was still in the EU.

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 19:54, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

Similarly, should Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay be mapped as
> natural=water + water=river? These are also estuaries.
>

I suspect the answer is contained within the question.  We have the words
"ocean" and "estuary" because we consider them to be different things.  We
might bicker a little about where the dividing line is but understand them
as
being different concepts.  Where does the coastline end?  At the start of
the estuary.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:16 PM Frederik Ramm  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 8/4/20 18:28, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> > In actual practice, in the estuaries of rivers, the 'coastline' is very
> > seldom tagged that far upstream.
>
> From my Chesapeake Bay example, in OSM, Havre de Grace (290km inland) is
> a "coastal"city
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=39.5443=-76.0961#map=10/39.5443/-76.0961
>
> though Baltimore (260km inland) is not, due to Patapsco River having its
> own polygon:
>
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=39.2461=-76.6523#map=10/39.2461/-76.6523
>
> Of course my "xxx km inland" depends on where you define the bay to
> begin, I used the US13 crossing at Norfolk.
>
> Not saying that is the measuring stick, and perhaps as a result of this
> discussion it needs to be tagged differently, or maybe the physical
> geography is different there.
>
>
Chesapeake Bay is commonly understood (not among biologists or
oceanographers, but in everyday speech) to be a marine environment. Even
its name suggests that.  Moreover, the Susquehanna is where the fall line
comes closest to the coast;  and so has the least problem of all the
Eastern US rivers. Nobody sane would place the 'coastline' above the
Conowingo dam, only a few km from Havre de Grace.Were it not for the dam
and lock, Conowingo would be the limit of navigability of the Susquehanna,
and the Potomac would not be navigable beyond Washington without the C
Canal infrastructure.

In any case, the number of words we've all exchanged on this topic itself
indicates that what we're trying to do is to fix indefinite boundaries.
Whether a particular land-water border is 'coastline' or not, for most
purposes, is a distinction without a difference. You have land on one side,
and water (of whatever salinity and tidal variation) on the other.  The
water likely belongs to one or more water bodies that have names; the
boundaries among named water bodies are almost always both indefinite and
culturally determined. Rivers are (usually) fresh and (usually) flow in one
direction. The ocean is salt and is (usually) tidal. We use 'estuary' to
describe the whole indefinite continuum between. For the Hudson, a
hydrologist would correctly say that the whole thing from the dam in Troy
to the ocean is estuarine. There are no bright lines separating the pieces.

Since there are no bright lines, there is a weaker technical argument in
favor of making the 'coastline' as small as possible - minimizing the
extent over which trivial mapping mistakes cause continent-wide rendering
gaffes.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Joseph Eisenberg]

The graphics in this document are mainly models of current flow, rather
than actual measurements, but it is mentioned that the average current
flow, neglecting wind, is only 0.1 m/s in the Rio de la Plata. Since winds
of 5 m/s are routine according to the paper, the currents vary strongly
based on winds and tides.

See for example the figura on pages 26 to 37 which show the modeled
variation with different wind direction. I don't see a modeling of the
affect of tides - this appears to be the average current over the tidal
cycle? But I admit I have not visited this area.

My main objection is the inclusion of Bahia Samborombon in the estuary. The
charts and satellite images show very little influence from river water in
that area, as well as in the section of coast east of Montevideo.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:42 PM  wrote:

>
>
> - Mensaje original -
> > De: "Kevin Kenny" 
> > Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> > Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 16:28:55
> > Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
>
> > On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:18 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com >
> > wrote:
>
> >> These rules would exclude the lower Rio De La Plata and the lower part
> of the
> >> mouth of the Saint Lawrence river, as well as other wide estuaries
> where winds
> >> and tides have more influence on surface water flow than does the
> discharge of
> >> the river. It would not prevent mapping the Hudson mouth at the
> southern tip of
> >> Manhattan, because the flow is strong all the way to New York Harbor,
> if I
> >> understand correctly.
>
> > The Hudson definitely reverses flow. One of its names among the First
> Peoples
> > translates to 'the river flows both ways.' The division in the flow lies
> less
> > in the fraction of the tidal cycle than the speed of the current. It
> flows
> > 'upstream' for half the time, 'downstream' for half, but the downstream
> current
> > is considerably swifter.
>
> Rio de la Plata would not be excluded, as you can read in the document [8]
> i linked in my first mail, for example, see some graphics of the flow of
> the river in page 25.
> [8] DINAMA. Salinidad
> https://www.dinama.gub.uy/oan/documentos/uploads/2016/12/patrones_circulacion.pdf
>
> Regaards,
> M.
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin
> costo.
>
> Informate si aplicás aquí.
>
> mvdfactura.uy
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> The Hudson definitely reverses flow. One of its names among the First
> Peoples translates to 'the river flows both ways.'  The division in
> the flow lies less in the fraction of the tidal cycle than the speed
> of the current. It flows 'upstream' for half the time, 'downstream'
> for half, but the downstream current is considerably swifter.

Note the proposal is a draft and does not necessarily represent the 
ultimate wisdom on everything written there.  I am not an expert on 
tidal dynamics of rivers so it is well possible that some adjustments 
in the details are advisable.  Defining the lower limit in the tidal 
case through water flow volume rather than duration seems prudent (and 
also better matching the logic for the non-tidal case) - i chose 
duration mostly because it is practically easier for the mapper to 
observe.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[muralito]

- Mensaje original -
> De: "Kevin Kenny" 
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 16:28:55
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:18 PM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com >
> wrote:

>> These rules would exclude the lower Rio De La Plata and the lower part of the
>> mouth of the Saint Lawrence river, as well as other wide estuaries where 
>> winds
>> and tides have more influence on surface water flow than does the discharge 
>> of
>> the river. It would not prevent mapping the Hudson mouth at the southern tip 
>> of
>> Manhattan, because the flow is strong all the way to New York Harbor, if I
>> understand correctly.

> The Hudson definitely reverses flow. One of its names among the First Peoples
> translates to 'the river flows both ways.' The division in the flow lies less
> in the fraction of the tidal cycle than the speed of the current. It flows
> 'upstream' for half the time, 'downstream' for half, but the downstream 
> current
> is considerably swifter.

Rio de la Plata would not be excluded, as you can read in the document [8] i 
linked in my first mail, for example, see some graphics of the flow of the 
river in page 25.
[8] DINAMA. Salinidad 
https://www.dinama.gub.uy/oan/documentos/uploads/2016/12/patrones_circulacion.pdf

Regaards,
M.



---

Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin costo.

Informate si aplicás aquí.

mvdfactura.uy

---



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Joseph Eisenberg]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:31 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> The Hudson definitely reverses flow. One of its names among the First
> Peoples translates to 'the river flows both ways.'  The division in the
> flow lies less in the fraction of the tidal cycle than the speed of the
> current. It flows 'upstream' for half the time, 'downstream' for half, but
> the downstream current is considerably swifter.
>

As long as the current is significantly faster in the downstream direction,
this qualifies by the standard that "the river current is clearly the
dominating current in the water" - that is, oceanic currents and
wind-driven currents are not the definition characteristic

In contrast, the East River, which is a tidal strait, would need to be
mapped on the marine side of the coastline, since the current flows through
the East River are not related to a fresh-water river current at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_River

By using the dominant currents as a definition, this allows local mappers
with knowledge of the water to determine the right tagging.

-- Joseph Eisenberg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Joseph Eisenberg]

"The locals certainly make a distinction between the waters of the
Sacramento and American rivers and those of San Pablo and San Franscisco
Bays, or those of Puget Sound and the many rivers that empty into it. They
also make a distinction between the bays, or the sound, and the ocean. "

And so do the locals in Uruguay and Argentina: the Rio de la Plata is the
name of the marine estuary, while the rivers which empty into it have their
own names: Rio Uruguay and Rio Paraná, which are each about 1.5 km (a
little under a mile) wide, open up to the Rio de la Plata which starts out
at ~30 to 50 km (20 to 30 miles) wide till after Buenos Aires, then becomes
almost 100 km wide by the time it opens up at Montevideo and Samborombon
Bay. The people who named the rivers and the estuary recognized a
difference.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:23 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:54 PM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It's perfectly possible to make a physical definition of an estuary which
>> allows the line of the natural=coastline to be placed across the lower
>> Hudson, rather than at Troy or Albany, if we look at salinity and currents
>> rather than just tides: and we must, because some parts of the coast in the
>> tropics have nearly 0 tidal variation (including the region around the Rio
>> de la Plata).
>>
>> But the current position of the natural=coastline ways between Argentina
>> and Uruguay is like if all of Lower New York Bay were outside of the
>> natural=coastline, and a line was instead drawn from Long Beach NY to Long
>> Branch NJ.
>>
>> This is quite serious when it comes to the Saint Lawrence river (Fleuve
>> Saint-Laurent), which can extend as far west into the Golf of Saint
>> Lawrence as you want, if we take the current placement of the
>> natural=coastline along the eastern edge of the Rio de la Plata as a guide.
>> I would suggest that the natural=coastline should cross no farther
>> downstream than Quebec City, where the river widens into the huge lower
>> estuary.
>>
>> Similarly, should Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay be mapped as
>> natural=water + water=river? These are also estuaries.
>>
>
> Deferring to local cultural understanding is actually a good start for the
> other examples.
>
> For the Hudson, if you wanted to draw the line from Rockaway Point to
> Sandy Hook (the two lighthouses commonly understood to mark the entrance of
> New York Harbor), from the Battery to Liberty Pier (mile 0 of the Hudson as
> it appears on the nautical charts) or from Spuyten Duyvil to Englewood
> Cliffs (just upstream from the first distributary, the Harlem River), I'd
> have no heartburn.
>
>  The lowest point on the river that would be at all defensible by any
> argument other than culture (and 'eyeball' geometry - on the map it *looks*
> like a river) would probably be between Peekskill and Stony Point. That's
> where you'd start to see mean annual salinity start to fall off sharply.
> (The seasonal variation is substantial.) That's already getting culturally
> and "eyeball geometry" start of dodgy.  Beyond that, I'd have to consult
> historical records for the historical maximum retreat of the salt front,
> but we're already quite some way upriver.
>
> Similarly, there's a local understanding of "Fleuve Saint-Laurent" vs
> "Golfe du Saint-Laurent" - and here I see that the locals have compromised
> by creating objects for 'Estuaire fluvial', 'Estuaire moyen' and 'Estuaire
> maritime'. Even there, the 'Estuaire fluvial' does not extend nearly to the
> tidal limit.
>
> The locals certainly make a distinction between the waters of the
> Sacramento and American rivers and those of San Pablo and San Franscisco
> Bays, or those of Puget Sound and the many rivers that empty into it. They
> also make a distinction between the bays, or the sound, and the ocean.
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:18 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> These rules would exclude the lower Rio De La Plata and the lower part of
> the mouth of the Saint Lawrence river, as well as other wide estuaries
> where winds and tides have more influence on surface water flow than does
> the discharge of the river. It would not prevent mapping the Hudson mouth
> at the southern tip of Manhattan, because the flow is strong all the way to
> New York Harbor, if I understand correctly.
>

The Hudson definitely reverses flow. One of its names among the First
Peoples translates to 'the river flows both ways.'  The division in the
flow lies less in the fraction of the tidal cycle than the speed of the
current. It flows 'upstream' for half the time, 'downstream' for half, but
the downstream current is considerably swifter.


-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 2:54 PM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> It's perfectly possible to make a physical definition of an estuary which
> allows the line of the natural=coastline to be placed across the lower
> Hudson, rather than at Troy or Albany, if we look at salinity and currents
> rather than just tides: and we must, because some parts of the coast in the
> tropics have nearly 0 tidal variation (including the region around the Rio
> de la Plata).
>
> But the current position of the natural=coastline ways between Argentina
> and Uruguay is like if all of Lower New York Bay were outside of the
> natural=coastline, and a line was instead drawn from Long Beach NY to Long
> Branch NJ.
>
> This is quite serious when it comes to the Saint Lawrence river (Fleuve
> Saint-Laurent), which can extend as far west into the Golf of Saint
> Lawrence as you want, if we take the current placement of the
> natural=coastline along the eastern edge of the Rio de la Plata as a guide.
> I would suggest that the natural=coastline should cross no farther
> downstream than Quebec City, where the river widens into the huge lower
> estuary.
>
> Similarly, should Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay be mapped as
> natural=water + water=river? These are also estuaries.
>

Deferring to local cultural understanding is actually a good start for the
other examples.

For the Hudson, if you wanted to draw the line from Rockaway Point to Sandy
Hook (the two lighthouses commonly understood to mark the entrance of New
York Harbor), from the Battery to Liberty Pier (mile 0 of the Hudson as it
appears on the nautical charts) or from Spuyten Duyvil to Englewood Cliffs
(just upstream from the first distributary, the Harlem River), I'd have no
heartburn.

 The lowest point on the river that would be at all defensible by any
argument other than culture (and 'eyeball' geometry - on the map it *looks*
like a river) would probably be between Peekskill and Stony Point. That's
where you'd start to see mean annual salinity start to fall off sharply.
(The seasonal variation is substantial.) That's already getting culturally
and "eyeball geometry" start of dodgy.  Beyond that, I'd have to consult
historical records for the historical maximum retreat of the salt front,
but we're already quite some way upriver.

Similarly, there's a local understanding of "Fleuve Saint-Laurent" vs
"Golfe du Saint-Laurent" - and here I see that the locals have compromised
by creating objects for 'Estuaire fluvial', 'Estuaire moyen' and 'Estuaire
maritime'. Even there, the 'Estuaire fluvial' does not extend nearly to the
tidal limit.

The locals certainly make a distinction between the waters of the
Sacramento and American rivers and those of San Pablo and San Franscisco
Bays, or those of Puget Sound and the many rivers that empty into it. They
also make a distinction between the bays, or the sound, and the ocean.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Re: " Your argument is that the first dam or waterfall is the only
'objective' way to place it. "

That's not what Christoph has proposed. You can read his suggestions at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement

It provides a great deal of lee-way for mappers to decide on the exact
placement. For the case of the Hudson it could be anywhere from New York
Harbor up to Albany:

"The upper limit

In case of significant tidal influence at the river mouth the coastline
should be closed no further upstream than the range of the tidal influence.

In case of no or insignificant tidal variation the coastline should not
extend significantly above the sea level with the river (*significantly* not
being precisely defined but i'd say at maximum a meter).
"The lower limit

With no or insignificant tides the coastline should go upstream at least to
a point where the river current is clearly the dominating current in the
water under normal weather conditions (i.e. no storm).

With significant tides the coastline should go upstream at least to a point
where on waterflow is going downstream for a significantly longer part of
the tidal cycle than it goes upstream due to rising tide."


These rules would exclude the lower Rio De La Plata and the lower part of
the mouth of the Saint Lawrence river, as well as other wide estuaries
where winds and tides have more influence on surface water flow than does
the discharge of the river. It would not prevent mapping the Hudson mouth
at the southern tip of Manhattan, because the flow is strong all the way to
New York Harbor, if I understand correctly.


- Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:54 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:59 PM Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
>> I am not saying that OSM should only record physical geography.  I am
>> saying that natural=coastline is a physical geography tag and should be
>> defined based on physical geography criteria.  If there is no consensus
>> about this we can end the discussion because if we cannot even agree on
>> basic conceptual separation on that level (i.e. that we separate the
>> mapping of the physical extent of surface water cover on this planet
>> from culturally defined elements of the geography) we can close up shop
>> right away.
>>
>
> Your straw man looks to be quite flammable.
>
> A water polygon remains a water polygon whether its boundary is
> `natural=coastilne`, `waterway=river`, `natural=water` or whatever. Nobody
> is arguing over the physical extent of surface water coverage.
>
> The precise line at which a river becomes a lake or the ocean is and will
> always be indefinite. We are arguing about how broadly or narrowly to draw
> it. Your argument is that the first dam or waterfall is the only
> 'objective' way to place it. That may be true: it's the first bright line.
> Nevertheless, in practice, it gives a much broader definition of the World
> Ocean than seems reasonable - placing the line hundreds of km from the
> commonly understood river mouth in many cases.
>
> I'm arguing that both cultural considerations (generally speaking, people
> do not call tidal inland riverbanks 'the coastline') and practical
> considerations (a much longer coastline further complicates the already
> horrible situation for coastline rendering) both militate in favor of
> putting the coastline as far downstream in the estuarine environment as is
> practicable. Nothing in my argument changes the physical extent of the
> mapped water surface by one centimetre. It's simply saying that for any
> indefinite boundary, there is no single right answer. Deference to the
> local cultural definitions, provided that they don't warp the indefinite
> boundary beyond any reasonable physical interpretation, is most likely
> warranted.
>
> --
> 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 8/4/20 18:28, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> In actual practice, in the estuaries of rivers, the 'coastline' is very
> seldom tagged that far upstream.

From my Chesapeake Bay example, in OSM, Havre de Grace (290km inland) is
a "coastal"city

https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=39.5443=-76.0961#map=10/39.5443/-76.0961

though Baltimore (260km inland) is not, due to Patapsco River having its
own polygon:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=39.2461=-76.6523#map=10/39.2461/-76.6523

Of course my "xxx km inland" depends on where you define the bay to
begin, I used the US13 crossing at Norfolk.

Not saying that is the measuring stick, and perhaps as a result of this
discussion it needs to be tagged differently, or maybe the physical
geography is different there.

Or maybe we conclude that physical geography doesn't count and what
counts is whether it "feels like" a coastal city ;)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> A water polygon remains a water polygon whether its boundary is
> `natural=coastilne`, `waterway=river`, `natural=water` or whatever.
> Nobody is arguing over the physical extent of surface water coverage.

I am sorry that i cannot make you see my point.  That however does not 
affect its validity.  Just for clarity i will repeat the core argument:

Basic conceptual separation between different fields of mapping is 
absolutely essential for OpenStreetMap to function.  We therefore 
cannot seriously consider mixing the mapping of physical extent of 
surface water cover on this planet (predominantly done with ways tagged 
natural=coastline) with culturally defined elements of the geography 
(that is using the same tag on ways to represent something not defined 
by physical geography criteria).

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 12:59 PM Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> I am not saying that OSM should only record physical geography.  I am
> saying that natural=coastline is a physical geography tag and should be
> defined based on physical geography criteria.  If there is no consensus
> about this we can end the discussion because if we cannot even agree on
> basic conceptual separation on that level (i.e. that we separate the
> mapping of the physical extent of surface water cover on this planet
> from culturally defined elements of the geography) we can close up shop
> right away.
>

Your straw man looks to be quite flammable.

A water polygon remains a water polygon whether its boundary is
`natural=coastilne`, `waterway=river`, `natural=water` or whatever. Nobody
is arguing over the physical extent of surface water coverage.

The precise line at which a river becomes a lake or the ocean is and will
always be indefinite. We are arguing about how broadly or narrowly to draw
it. Your argument is that the first dam or waterfall is the only
'objective' way to place it. That may be true: it's the first bright line.
Nevertheless, in practice, it gives a much broader definition of the World
Ocean than seems reasonable - placing the line hundreds of km from the
commonly understood river mouth in many cases.

I'm arguing that both cultural considerations (generally speaking, people
do not call tidal inland riverbanks 'the coastline') and practical
considerations (a much longer coastline further complicates the already
horrible situation for coastline rendering) both militate in favor of
putting the coastline as far downstream in the estuarine environment as is
practicable. Nothing in my argument changes the physical extent of the
mapped water surface by one centimetre. It's simply saying that for any
indefinite boundary, there is no single right answer. Deference to the
local cultural definitions, provided that they don't warp the indefinite
boundary beyond any reasonable physical interpretation, is most likely
warranted.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Joseph Eisenberg]

It's perfectly possible to make a physical definition of an estuary which
allows the line of the natural=coastline to be placed across the lower
Hudson, rather than at Troy or Albany, if we look at salinity and currents
rather than just tides: and we must, because some parts of the coast in the
tropics have nearly 0 tidal variation (including the region around the Rio
de la Plata).

But the current position of the natural=coastline ways between Argentina
and Uruguay is like if all of Lower New York Bay were outside of the
natural=coastline, and a line was instead drawn from Long Beach NY to Long
Branch NJ.

This is quite serious when it comes to the Saint Lawrence river (Fleuve
Saint-Laurent), which can extend as far west into the Golf of Saint
Lawrence as you want, if we take the current placement of the
natural=coastline along the eastern edge of the Rio de la Plata as a guide.
I would suggest that the natural=coastline should cross no farther
downstream than Quebec City, where the river widens into the huge lower
estuary.

Similarly, should Puget Sound and San Francisco Bay be mapped as
natural=water + water=river? These are also estuaries.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 9:30 AM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:24 AM Joseph Eisenberg <
> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This means that the line tagged with natural=coastline is on the inland
>> side of all marine water, including mangroves, salt marshes, and tidal
>> channels, as far as possible. It makes sense that in estuaries, the route
>> of the ways tagged natural=coastline should also extend up to the limit of
>> marine influence. In some cases this has been taken to mean the limit of
>> the tides, in others it is the limit of mixing of salt and fresh water.
>>
>
> I agree that's what the Wiki says. The Wiki says a lot of things.
>
> In actual practice, in the estuaries of rivers, the 'coastline' is very
> seldom tagged that far upstream.
>
> I return to the example of the Hudson River. The tidal influence extends
> upstream to Lock and Dam Number One - 248 km from the river mouth. The salt
> front varies strongly with the season. There can be fresh water in New York
> Harbor during the spring snowmelt, or salt water at Poughkeepsie (122 km
> upriver) in a dry summer. (It's also defined somewhat arbitrarily as a
> conductivity of 510 microsiemens/metre at the surface - but surface
> salinity is, in most seasons, higher than the salinity at depth because the
> cold, fresh river water underlies the relatively warm, brackish surface
> water.) Needless to say, the biome is very different between Albany (always
> fresh water) and Yonkers (always salt, except for snowmelt events).
> Oceangoing vessels of up to 9 m draft can ply the river as far as Albany.
> (In less xenophobic times, vessels of friendly nations could clear customs
> at Albany.)
>
> For pretty much all the rivers in eastern North America, the tidal
> influence extends to the first dam or waterfall. This usually coincides
> with what would be the head of navigation if it were not for modern
> improvements such as locks. Riverports from Augusta, Maine to Macon,
> Georgia would become 'coastal' cities. That's surely no more the local
> understanding on the Kennebec or the Ocmulgee than it is on the Elbe!
>
> For the Amazon, the situation is even more extreme - the river is tidal
> for a thousand kilometres from what would be conventionally recognized as
> the 'coast'.
>
> It appears that for most of the world, this rule, if actually implemented
> - and it is important to stress that it is NOT the way things are mapped at
> present - would extend the 'coastline' for tens or hundreds of km upstream
> on most of the first-order rivers of the world.
>
> Given the fact that even with today's definition, we frequently go for
> months without a consistent coastline to give to the renderer, do we want
> to add tens of thousands more kilometres of 'natural=coastline'? We'd never
> see a coastline update again! (For this reason, I'm inclined to push the
> 'coastline' as far toward the sea as sensibly possible, to have as little
> 'coastline' as possible to get broken, rather than going for months without
> updates or worse, seeing rendering accidents flood whole continents.)
>
> Moreover, I'm somewhat puzzled at Christoph's insistence that
> 'natural=coastline' have a strict physical definition, and dismiss local
> understanding as merely political and cultural. In almost all other aspects
> of OSM, the understanding of the locals is what governs. That understanding
> is, ipso facto, cultural - but we dismiss it at our peril. Ignoring local
> understanding is a path to irrelevance. (In another OSM domain, I've seen
> this sort of nonsense before; I've actually seen someone seriously suggest
> that a peak should not have its name in OSM unless someone can find a sign
> with the name on it, because asking locals and consulting reference works
> is not 'verifiability 

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>
> Moreover, I'm somewhat puzzled at Christoph's insistence that
> 'natural=coastline' have a strict physical definition, and dismiss
> local understanding as merely political and cultural. In almost all
> other aspects of OSM, the understanding of the locals is what
> governs. That understanding is, ipso facto, cultural - but we dismiss
> it at our peril. Ignoring local understanding is a path to
> irrelevance.

I am not saying that OSM should only record physical geography.  I am 
saying that natural=coastline is a physical geography tag and should be 
defined based on physical geography criteria.  If there is no consensus 
about this we can end the discussion because if we cannot even agree on 
basic conceptual separation on that level (i.e. that we separate the 
mapping of the physical extent of surface water cover on this planet 
from culturally defined elements of the geography) we can close up shop 
right away.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Colin Smale]

On 2020-08-04 17:40, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> +1, similarly in Italy, the baseline is defined through (relatively few) 
> coordinates in a law, which is located always on the most outer points of the 
> land or on islands, it has few to do with the coastline. For example the Gulf 
> of Taranto is completely included.

The status of the Gulf of Taranto is disputable as it appears to have no
basis in international law.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:24 AM Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

> This means that the line tagged with natural=coastline is on the inland
> side of all marine water, including mangroves, salt marshes, and tidal
> channels, as far as possible. It makes sense that in estuaries, the route
> of the ways tagged natural=coastline should also extend up to the limit of
> marine influence. In some cases this has been taken to mean the limit of
> the tides, in others it is the limit of mixing of salt and fresh water.
>

I agree that's what the Wiki says. The Wiki says a lot of things.

In actual practice, in the estuaries of rivers, the 'coastline' is very
seldom tagged that far upstream.

I return to the example of the Hudson River. The tidal influence extends
upstream to Lock and Dam Number One - 248 km from the river mouth. The salt
front varies strongly with the season. There can be fresh water in New York
Harbor during the spring snowmelt, or salt water at Poughkeepsie (122 km
upriver) in a dry summer. (It's also defined somewhat arbitrarily as a
conductivity of 510 microsiemens/metre at the surface - but surface
salinity is, in most seasons, higher than the salinity at depth because the
cold, fresh river water underlies the relatively warm, brackish surface
water.) Needless to say, the biome is very different between Albany (always
fresh water) and Yonkers (always salt, except for snowmelt events).
Oceangoing vessels of up to 9 m draft can ply the river as far as Albany.
(In less xenophobic times, vessels of friendly nations could clear customs
at Albany.)

For pretty much all the rivers in eastern North America, the tidal
influence extends to the first dam or waterfall. This usually coincides
with what would be the head of navigation if it were not for modern
improvements such as locks. Riverports from Augusta, Maine to Macon,
Georgia would become 'coastal' cities. That's surely no more the local
understanding on the Kennebec or the Ocmulgee than it is on the Elbe!

For the Amazon, the situation is even more extreme - the river is tidal for
a thousand kilometres from what would be conventionally recognized as the
'coast'.

It appears that for most of the world, this rule, if actually implemented -
and it is important to stress that it is NOT the way things are mapped at
present - would extend the 'coastline' for tens or hundreds of km upstream
on most of the first-order rivers of the world.

Given the fact that even with today's definition, we frequently go for
months without a consistent coastline to give to the renderer, do we want
to add tens of thousands more kilometres of 'natural=coastline'? We'd never
see a coastline update again! (For this reason, I'm inclined to push the
'coastline' as far toward the sea as sensibly possible, to have as little
'coastline' as possible to get broken, rather than going for months without
updates or worse, seeing rendering accidents flood whole continents.)

Moreover, I'm somewhat puzzled at Christoph's insistence that
'natural=coastline' have a strict physical definition, and dismiss local
understanding as merely political and cultural. In almost all other aspects
of OSM, the understanding of the locals is what governs. That understanding
is, ipso facto, cultural - but we dismiss it at our peril. Ignoring local
understanding is a path to irrelevance. (In another OSM domain, I've seen
this sort of nonsense before; I've actually seen someone seriously suggest
that a peak should not have its name in OSM unless someone can find a sign
with the name on it, because asking locals and consulting reference works
is not 'verifiability in the field.')

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[muralito]

Right. With the current wiki meaning, the natural=coastline should be placed in 
the line between Punta del Este and Punta Rasa.
These are verifiable physical facts. The limit has to be put in some place, and 
it is clear to all local mappers that the best option to put the limit is 
there. It is like an average of where the river stops the ocean. 
Here you can see the very different physical characteristics of both coasts, 
wind, currents, salinity, waves, tides, etc, as one is an ocean shore and the 
other a riverbank.

This is not a problem of the data, is about how the render look in low zooms.

The coastline problem is in other rivers, like Elbe River, that it is placed 70 
km inland, but as that does not bother the render seems that nobody cares.

Regards,
M.

- Mensaje original -
> De: "Joseph Eisenberg" 
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 12:21:48
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> We are not talking about a concept like "the coastline", we are talking about
> the tag "natural=coastline", which in OpenStreetMap has been defined (for over
> 12 years) as " The mean high water (springs) line between the sea and land
> (with the water on the right side of the way) ".

> "The natural = coastline tag is used to mark the mean high water springs line"

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline

> Mean high water springs is " the highest line the water reaches in normal
> circumstances".

> The problem is that we did not have a clear definition of where this line 
> should
> cross a river or estuary.

> However, it is widely agreed 
> thahttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastlinet the highest 
> tide line is the feature that
> should be mapped on the edge of marine water bodies which have tides, 
> including
> bays, fjords, lagoons and so on.

> This means that the line tagged with natural=coastline is on the inland side 
> of
> all marine water, including mangroves, salt marshes, and tidal channels, as 
> far
> as possible. It makes sense that in estuaries, the route of the ways tagged
> natural=coastline should also extend up to the limit of marine influence. In
> some cases this has been taken to mean the limit of the tides, in others it is
> the limit of mixing of salt and fresh water.

> We are not mapping the low tide line or political baseline with
> natural=coastline: the baseline is often far out to sea. Looking at the
> Phillipines and Indonesia, the baseline has very little relation to the
> physical geographical tide lines, since it merely connects the outer edges of
> islands in the archipelago.

> Similarly, in Uruguay and Argentina, the local governments have defined the
> baseline as far out to sea as possible, so that they can claim a larger area 
> of
> ocean as an exclusive economic zone. This should not influence tagging in
> OpenStreetMap, which needs to be based on real, verifiable, physical
> characteristics.

> – Joseph Eisenberg

> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 7:57 AM < mural...@montevideo.com.uy > wrote:

>> - Mensaje original -
>> > De: "Christoph Hormann" < o...@imagico.de >
>> > Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" < 
>> > tagging@openstreetmap.org >
>> > Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 11:17:32
>> > Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

>> > On Tuesday 04 August 2020, mural...@montevideo.com.uy wrote:

>> >> I linked several scientific studies that clearly shows and are
>> >> verifiable geographic evidence that this is not an oceanic coast, its
>> >> a riverbank [...]

>> > I am not going to start a discussion here on the semantics of terms
>> > like 'ocean', 'riverbank', 'coast' or similar which are inherently
>> > culture specific and political.

>> > So i repeat my request:

>> > could you formulate a generic rule for coastline placement similar to
>> > what i formulated in

>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement

>> > that

>> > (a) allows for the coastline placement you favor in case of the Rio de
>> > la Plata
>> > (b) is based on verifiable physical geography criteria that can
>> > practically be checked by mappers and
>> > (c) that is compatible to most of the current coastline placements at
>> > river mouths around the world?

>> > If you can do that we can try to have a productive discussion without
>> > delving into the swamp of politics and cultural differences and maybe
>> > can find a consensus p

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Aug 2020, at 17:24, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> 
> Looking at the Phillipines and Indonesia, the baseline has very little 
> relation to the physical geographical tide lines, since it merely connects 
> the outer edges of islands in the archipelago.
> 
> Similarly, in Uruguay and Argentina, the local governments have defined the 
> baseline as far out to sea as possible, so that they can claim a larger area 
> of ocean as an exclusive economic zone. This should not influence tagging in 
> OpenStreetMap, which needs to be based on real, verifiable, physical 
> characteristics.


+1, similarly in Italy, the baseline is defined through (relatively few) 
coordinates in a law, which is located always on the most outer points of the 
land or on islands, it has few to do with the coastline. For example the Gulf 
of Taranto is completely included.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=7/39.813/17.595

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 04 August 2020, mural...@montevideo.com.uy wrote:
>
> It's all about semantics.

No, physical geography is not.

> How could I answer your question if you are not able to define what
> you mean by natural=coastline?

I am able to explain how i would define natural=coastline and i have 
already done so.  What i am interested in is how you define 
natural=coastline based on verifiable physical geography criteria.

> We must first agree on what features 
> we call it coastline, and then I can explain where I think it should
> be drawn.

But you already explained where you think the coastline should be 
drawn - what i would like to understand is why, in generic terms and 
based on verifiable physical geography criteria.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Joseph Eisenberg]

We are not talking about a concept like "the coastline", we are talking
about the tag "natural=coastline", which in OpenStreetMap has been defined
(for over 12 years) as "The mean high water (springs) line between the sea
and land (with the water on the right side of the way) ".

"The natural <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural>=coastline tag
is used to mark the *mean high water springs
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/mean_high_water_spring>* line"

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline

Mean high water springs is " the highest line the water reaches in normal
circumstances".

The problem is that we did not have a clear definition of where this line
should cross a river or estuary.

However, it is widely agreed that the highest tide line is the feature that
should be mapped on the edge of marine water bodies which have tides,
including bays, fjords, lagoons and so on.

This means that the line tagged with natural=coastline is on the inland
side of all marine water, including mangroves, salt marshes, and tidal
channels, as far as possible. It makes sense that in estuaries, the route
of the ways tagged natural=coastline should also extend up to the limit of
marine influence. In some cases this has been taken to mean the limit of
the tides, in others it is the limit of mixing of salt and fresh water.

We are not mapping the low tide line or political baseline with
natural=coastline: the baseline is often far out to sea. Looking at the
Phillipines and Indonesia, the baseline has very little relation to the
physical geographical tide lines, since it merely connects the outer edges
of islands in the archipelago.

Similarly, in Uruguay and Argentina, the local governments have defined the
baseline as far out to sea as possible, so that they can claim a larger
area of ocean as an exclusive economic zone. This should not influence
tagging in OpenStreetMap, which needs to be based on real, verifiable,
physical characteristics.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 7:57 AM  wrote:

> - Mensaje original -
> > De: "Christoph Hormann" 
> > Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> > Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 11:17:32
> > Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
>
> > On Tuesday 04 August 2020, mural...@montevideo.com.uy wrote:
> >>
> >> I linked several scientific studies that clearly shows and are
> >> verifiable geographic evidence that this is not an oceanic coast, its
> >> a riverbank [...]
> >
> > I am not going to start a discussion here on the semantics of terms
> > like 'ocean', 'riverbank', 'coast' or similar which are inherently
> > culture specific and political.
> >
> > So i repeat my request:
> >
> > could you formulate a generic rule for coastline placement similar to
> > what i formulated in
> >
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
> >
> > that
> >
> > (a) allows for the coastline placement you favor in case of the Rio de
> > la Plata
> > (b) is based on verifiable physical geography criteria that can
> > practically be checked by mappers and
> > (c) that is compatible to most of the current coastline placements at
> > river mouths around the world?
> >
> > If you can do that we can try to have a productive discussion without
> > delving into the swamp of politics and cultural differences and maybe
> > can find a consensus position that everyone can be satisfied with.
> >
>
> It's all about semantics.
>
> How could I answer your question if you are not able to define what you
> mean by natural=coastline?
> We must first agree on what features we call it coastline, and then I can
> explain where I think it should be drawn.
>
> Regards,
> M.
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin
> costo.
>
> Informate si aplicás aquí.
>
> mvdfactura.uy
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[muralito]

- Mensaje original -
> De: "Alan Mackie" 
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 11:35:29
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> On Tue, 4 Aug 2020, 14:19 , < mural...@montevideo.com.uy > wrote:

>> - Mensaje original -
>> > De: "Christoph Hormann" < o...@imagico.de >
>> > Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" < 
>> > tagging@openstreetmap.org >
>> > Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 9:14:32
>> > Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

>> > Almost all of the arguments you bring up here are cultural or political
>> > in nature. Discussing those will lead us nowhere. Hence my suggestion
>> > to you in the other mail to consider this exclusively from the physical
>> > geographic perspective.

>> > The only point i could identify in your writing that is not
>> > cultural/political in nature is the claim that the Rio de la Plata was
>> > first mapped 6 years ago when the riverbank polygon was created. That
>> > is not true. The Rio de la Plata was mapped long before - first
>> > significant parts started in 2011 already, by end 2012 the mapping was
>> > complete:

>> > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WK9

>> > and it stayed tagged as natural=coastline until you changed that in:

>> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20290034

>> > After that there were countless attempts to move up the coastline
>> > closure again - all of which however were soon reverted.
>> > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WKi
>> > --
>> > Christoph Hormann
>> > http://www.imagico.de/

>> > ___
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

>> I linked several scientific studies that clearly shows and are verifiable
>> geographic evidence that this is not an oceanic coast, its a riverbank and
>> should not be tagged as coastline. Not cultural, not politics. I just linked
>> the treaties to show that there are no political motivations in my thinking,
>> because the political issues were already solved many years ago. Anyway, most
>> limits, including natural ones are political facts, agreement between 
>> nations,
>> also including defacto limits because war is also politics.
>> It's only physical geographic perspective, its a riverbank, not an ocean, its
>> inner fresh water.

>> You are mixing things. The coastline is not the river. The waterway=river for
>> Rio de la Plata was not mapped until i mapped it in
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/19137685 in November 2013. That is 6
>> years, and will be 7 years in 3 months. Modify your query to search for
>> waterway=river and you will see.
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WKi . And no mapping is ever complete, at less 
>> here
>> where e.g. new sediment islands keeps appearing, old islands increase it 
>> size,
>> and nearby islands joins toghether.

>> I changed the tagging because it was and it is wrong to tag this as 
>> coastline,
>> it's a riverbank, as i have been saying for years. The coastline should be in
>> the line because to the west there are inner waters and to the east the 
>> ocean.

>> Regards,
>> M.

>> ---

>> Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin 
>> costo.

>> Informate si aplicás aquí.

>> mvdfactura.uy

>> ---

>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

> There seems to be confusion here between mapping a feature and having it 
> named.
> I suspect too much weight is being given to names generally in this discussion
> even if this is not explicitly stated. Something OSM considers a bay may be
> called a cove in the name, named tidal "creeks" are mapped as tidal_channel
> etc. The name can't be the final arbiter of tagging else in the extreme case 
> we
> would be rendering Rio de Janeiro in blue along with a whole chain of
> coffeeshops.

> In this case it is the physical feature that is in question not the extent of
> the area that holds that name. The name can

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[muralito]

- Mensaje original -
> De: "Christoph Hormann" 
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 11:17:32
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> On Tuesday 04 August 2020, mural...@montevideo.com.uy wrote:
>>
>> I linked several scientific studies that clearly shows and are
>> verifiable geographic evidence that this is not an oceanic coast, its
>> a riverbank [...]
> 
> I am not going to start a discussion here on the semantics of terms
> like 'ocean', 'riverbank', 'coast' or similar which are inherently
> culture specific and political.
> 
> So i repeat my request:
> 
> could you formulate a generic rule for coastline placement similar to
> what i formulated in
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
> 
> that
> 
> (a) allows for the coastline placement you favor in case of the Rio de
> la Plata
> (b) is based on verifiable physical geography criteria that can
> practically be checked by mappers and
> (c) that is compatible to most of the current coastline placements at
> river mouths around the world?
> 
> If you can do that we can try to have a productive discussion without
> delving into the swamp of politics and cultural differences and maybe
> can find a consensus position that everyone can be satisfied with.
> 

It's all about semantics.

How could I answer your question if you are not able to define what you mean by 
natural=coastline?
We must first agree on what features we call it coastline, and then I can 
explain where I think it should be drawn.

Regards,
M.



---

Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin costo.

Informate si aplicás aquí.

mvdfactura.uy

---



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[muralito]

- Mensaje original -
> De: "Christoph Hormann" 
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 8:04:55
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> On Monday 03 August 2020, mural...@montevideo.com.uy wrote:
>>
>> i will try.
>>
>>
>> in my last mail i'm questioning the coastline placement in several
>> rivers. so,
>> -what are we mapping the coastline for?
>> -what we want from the "coastline"?
>> -what questions are we going to answer, or could we answer, with that
>> modeling of the coastline/world? (or we just draw it for the
>> renderer)
> 
> In general in OSM
> 
> * we are not mapping for a specific purpose, we are documenting local
> knowledge about the verifiable geography of the world.
> * what individual tags mean and how they are to be used is decided by
> the mappers using them - but not individually on a case-by-case basis
> but collectively by all the mappers of OSM together.
> 
> The problem we have here is that there seems to be a fairly massive
> discrepancy between what some local mappers in the region seem to view
> natural=coastline to mean and what mappers in other parts of the world
> have in mind there.  My request for you to formulate a universal rule
> is meant to gauge that difference and evaluate options for a consensus.
> 

Sure, there seems to be huge discrepancy with the meanings of the coastline, 
and as you said, all discrepancy is from armchair mappers. There is wide 
consensus in both local communities.

That is what my questions were trying to clarify, and your answers do not go in 
that direction, I do not ask in general in OSM, I specifically ask about the 
coastline. On that we have to agree. Once is it clear what we need or want the 
coastline to model we could determine where to place it.

It seems that is like the Great Lakes, that were initially mapped as 
natural=coastline for the renderer, and later corrected to natural=water. The 
same is here.

What it seems to be the problem most mappers see is in the "map", that the 
natural=coastline and the natural=water are rendered at different zooms, so 
it's a rendering problem. Seems that people interested on how it renders are 
trying to force the data so the render fulfills they expectations. Based on 
size Rio de la Plata  should appear in a rendering, sure yes, should be 
rendered as ocean, no, it should be rendered as other rivers, but also in low 
zooms. It's simply, just say that people want to force the coastline.

Going back to an example, for us it doesn't make sense that the coastline is 
drawed 70 km inland in Elbe river.

Regards,
M.



---

Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin costo.

Informate si aplicás aquí.

mvdfactura.uy

---



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Adam Franco wrote:
> It seems to me that the main underlying conflict is that (at least in
> the default Carto rendering on openstreetmap.org a few years ago) the
> Rio Plata was getting rendered as land at low-zooms and South America
> simply looks wrong when such a large water area is rendered as land.
>
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1604 is a
> very long issue thread [...]

That is old history.

OSM-Carto does not distinguish between rendering of riverbank polygons 
and rendering of the water polygons created from the coastline data.  
The only difference at the moment is that a (cartographically 
counterproductive) way_area filtering is applied to the riverbank and 
natural=water polygons.  That has been reduced significantly earlier 
this year in

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4060

but still distorts rendering to some extent.  It however is not relevant 
for large riverbank polygons like we discuss here.

As i have said earlier in this discussion it would be highly desirable 
for consistent mapping if we would actually distinguish different 
waterbody classes in rendering.  A change for that has been suggested 
last October:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/3930

was already merged but then reverted due to opposition from one of the 
maintainers.  There is a new suggestion to implement this:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4128

but it seems still contested.  Getting this change merged and released 
would go a long way towards mappers developing consensus on coastline 
placement since it would provide feedback on the coastline position 
without favoring a particular placement.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Alan Mackie]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020, 14:19 ,  wrote:

> - Mensaje original -
> > De: "Christoph Hormann" 
> > Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> > Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 9:14:32
> > Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
>
> > Almost all of the arguments you bring up here are cultural or political
> > in nature.  Discussing those will lead us nowhere.  Hence my suggestion
> > to you in the other mail to consider this exclusively from the physical
> > geographic perspective.
> >
> > The only point i could identify in your writing that is not
> > cultural/political in nature is the claim that the Rio de la Plata was
> > first mapped 6 years ago when the riverbank polygon was created.  That
> > is not true.  The Rio de la Plata was mapped long before - first
> > significant parts started in 2011 already, by end 2012 the mapping was
> > complete:
> >
> > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WK9
> >
> > and it stayed tagged as natural=coastline until you changed that in:
> >
> > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20290034
> >
> > After that there were countless attempts to move up the coastline
> > closure again - all of which however were soon reverted.
> > https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WKi
> > --
> > Christoph Hormann
> > http://www.imagico.de/
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> I linked several scientific studies that clearly shows and are verifiable
> geographic evidence that this is not an oceanic coast, its a riverbank and
> should not be tagged as coastline. Not cultural, not politics. I just
> linked the treaties to show that there are no political motivations in my
> thinking, because the political issues were already solved many years ago.
> Anyway, most limits, including natural ones are political facts, agreement
> between nations, also including defacto limits because war is also politics.
> It's only physical geographic perspective, its a riverbank, not an ocean,
> its inner fresh water.
>
> You are mixing things. The coastline is not the river. The waterway=river
> for Rio de la Plata was not mapped until i mapped it in
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/19137685 in November 2013. That
> is 6 years, and will be 7 years in 3 months. Modify your query to search
> for waterway=river and you will see.
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WKi . And no mapping is ever complete, at
> less here where e.g. new sediment islands keeps appearing, old islands
> increase it size, and nearby islands joins toghether.
>
> I changed the tagging because it was and it is wrong to tag this as
> coastline, it's a riverbank, as i have been saying for years. The coastline
> should be in the line because to the west there are inner waters and to the
> east the ocean.
>
> Regards,
> M.
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin
> costo.
>
> Informate si aplicás aquí.
>
> mvdfactura.uy
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


There seems to be confusion here between mapping a feature and having it
named. I suspect too much weight is being given to names generally in this
discussion even if this is not explicitly stated. Something OSM considers a
bay may be called a cove in the name, named tidal "creeks" are mapped as
tidal_channel etc. The name can't be the final arbiter of tagging else in
the extreme case we would be rendering Rio de Janeiro in blue along with a
whole chain of coffeeshops.

In this case it is the physical feature that is in question not the extent
of the area that holds that name. The name can easily be tagged separately
on the agreed political boundary.

>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 04 August 2020, mural...@montevideo.com.uy wrote:
>
> I linked several scientific studies that clearly shows and are
> verifiable geographic evidence that this is not an oceanic coast, its
> a riverbank [...]

I am not going to start a discussion here on the semantics of terms 
like 'ocean', 'riverbank', 'coast' or similar which are inherently 
culture specific and political.

So i repeat my request:

could you formulate a generic rule for coastline placement similar to 
what i formulated in

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement

that 

(a) allows for the coastline placement you favor in case of the Rio de 
la Plata
(b) is based on verifiable physical geography criteria that can 
practically be checked by mappers and
(c) that is compatible to most of the current coastline placements at 
river mouths around the world?

If you can do that we can try to have a productive discussion without 
delving into the swamp of politics and cultural differences and maybe 
can find a consensus position that everyone can be satisfied with.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Adam Franco]

It seems to me that the main underlying conflict is that (at least in the
default Carto rendering on openstreetmap.org a few years ago) the Rio Plata
was getting rendered as land at low-zooms and South America simply looks
wrong when such a large water area is rendered as land.

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1604 is a very
long issue thread that addresses this land/water rendering problem,
starting first with some of the Great Lakes not rendering, then expanding
to cover other water areas. I'm not familiar enough with the Carto code to
know the current state of things, but would this rendering issue still be
present today if the coastline was drawn from Punta del Este to Punta Rasa
as muralito suggests? If this rendering issue has been addressed then it
feels to me like the stakes of the "coastline" tagging placement become
much lower.

My impression is that low-zoom renderers seem to often interpret
"coastline" as "the junction between land and 'big water'" whereas people
standing on land looking at water might often interpret "coastline" as
solely "the junction between land and ocean/sea" and may not want to
include rivers, estuaries, canals, navigation channels, salt-marshes,
protected bays, and other features that sit a little bit away from where
ocean waves are crashing on the beach. While usually these features are
small enough to ignore at low-zoom, Rio Plata, the Saint Lawrence estuary
, Long
Island Sound,
 Pamlico
Sound ,
and others are big enough to be visible at low-zooms qualify as "big water"
connected to the ocean even if they aren't fully ocean themselves.
Similarly does the "coast" shift out to include barrier islands and enclose
the protected waters behind them? Looking at current mapping it does
sometimes and doesn't other times.

All that said, there are probably many other data consumers who aren't able
to leverage the techniques used by Carto and would like to make their own
decisions about how to render the distinctions between land, fresh water,
and big salty water. Being able to tag an estuarine environment with its
own tags could allow data consumers to make their own choices about
rendering and placement. Some potential use cases:

   - A general purpose renderer like Carto would probably want to display
   estuaries as water to make the land shape more closely match low-zoom
   satellite imagery. Most traditional general-purpose maps care more about
   the distinction between land and water rather than what the properties of
   the water are

   - A marine ecology map might wish to render oceans and estuaries, but
   hide rivers and land-based features from display.

   - A map focused on rivers might want to highlight the distinction
   between purely fresh-water rivers and estuaries in a more pronounced way
   than a general-purpose map would want to.

Joseph previously suggested dedicated estuary tagging:

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 06:43, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> I have previously proposed that estuaries should be mapped by extending
> the coastline upstream to the limit of the estuary, and also mapping the
> area of the estuary as water with water=estuary
>

Unfortunately, only a waterfall or dam is going to provide the kind of
hard-lined transition point between ocean and river that would allow a
"coastline" way to cut across the water without ambiguity as to its
placement. All other transitions points on every river-mouth (estuary or
otherwise) are going to be ever changing with rainfall and tides and at
best will only ever be an agreed-upon average or culturally defined
placement. It is simply impossible to verifiably map an ever-shifting
gradient with a single line across the water.

I'd suggest that estuaries get their own tagging as areas (maybe with
sub-sections covering differing properties like tidal influence, salinity
thresholds, etc) and let the "coastline" cross it wherever local mappers
agree a good average threshold is met. The estuary areas should have their
extent based on physically defined thresholds like "average annual salinity
greater than x%" or "average current dominated by ocean-flow vs
river-flow".  Data consumers can then be free to use the mapped "coastline"
line or ignore it where it crosses an estuary, including the greatest
extent of the estuary in their interpretation of "coast" or the most
minimal.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[muralito]

- Mensaje original -
> De: "Christoph Hormann" 
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Enviados: Martes, 4 de Agosto 2020 9:14:32
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> Almost all of the arguments you bring up here are cultural or political
> in nature.  Discussing those will lead us nowhere.  Hence my suggestion
> to you in the other mail to consider this exclusively from the physical
> geographic perspective.
> 
> The only point i could identify in your writing that is not
> cultural/political in nature is the claim that the Rio de la Plata was
> first mapped 6 years ago when the riverbank polygon was created.  That
> is not true.  The Rio de la Plata was mapped long before - first
> significant parts started in 2011 already, by end 2012 the mapping was
> complete:
> 
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WK9
> 
> and it stayed tagged as natural=coastline until you changed that in:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20290034
> 
> After that there were countless attempts to move up the coastline
> closure again - all of which however were soon reverted.
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WKi
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

I linked several scientific studies that clearly shows and are verifiable 
geographic evidence that this is not an oceanic coast, its a riverbank and 
should not be tagged as coastline. Not cultural, not politics. I just linked 
the treaties to show that there are no political motivations in my thinking, 
because the political issues were already solved many years ago. Anyway, most 
limits, including natural ones are political facts, agreement between nations, 
also including defacto limits because war is also politics.
It's only physical geographic perspective, its a riverbank, not an ocean, its 
inner fresh water.

You are mixing things. The coastline is not the river. The waterway=river for 
Rio de la Plata was not mapped until i mapped it in 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/19137685 in November 2013. That is 6 
years, and will be 7 years in 3 months. Modify your query to search for 
waterway=river and you will see.
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WKi . And no mapping is ever complete, at less here 
where e.g. new sediment islands keeps appearing, old islands increase it size, 
and nearby islands joins toghether.

I changed the tagging because it was and it is wrong to tag this as coastline, 
it's a riverbank, as i have been saying for years. The coastline should be in 
the line because to the west there are inner waters and to the east the ocean.

Regards,
M.



---

Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin costo.

Informate si aplicás aquí.

mvdfactura.uy

---



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 04 August 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> Christoph, I guess it could be seen from looking at the email headers
> or when reading in a threaded view, but for the convenience of
> everybody I’d ask you to add a bit of context to your contributions
> here (in particular to whom you reply)

Sorry - i sometimes forget that there are people who seriously read 
mailing lists in a non-threaded view.

That mail was in reply to muralito's detailed comments in reply to 
Frederik:

> As with any terms in OSM context, we should'nt literaly translate the
> terms betwen languages because we can incurr in errors. Sometimes
> also between dialects of the same language the same word have
> different meanings. In this case, "coastline" should'nt be translated
> to spanish as "costa". Acording to RAE.es (official institution for
> the spanish language), it defines "costa" as "Orilla del mar, de un
> río, de un lago, etc., y tierra que está cerca de ella". Translated,
> in spanish "costa" does not mean only seashore ("Orilla de mar"), it
> could be a river bank ("Orilla de río"), lake shore ("Orilla de
> lago". So that any city or comunity defines itself as "costa" or
> "costera", or "SHORE" or any other term, is not related to the OSM
> coastline definition. It is also different from the definition of
> "coast" from Oxford Dictionary (6th edition that i have in hand),
> which refers to the land besides the ocean or the sea.
>
> In some cases, like this, the wikipedia article lacks the accuracy to
> define river. The river starts in Paralelo Hito Punta Gorda and ends
> in the line between Punta del Este and Punta Rasa.
>
> Here in Uruguay we have two "coast", the oceanic coast
> (natural=coastline) which begins in Punta del Este and goes to the
> border with Brazil. The other "coast" is the river, which is why
> Montevideo, Buenos Aires, etc, are known as "ciudad ribereña"
> (riverside city). The oceanic coast in the Argentina side, also
> starts in Punta Rasa. Those two different coast are very different
> All this facts are clearly visible and verifiable being here. Just
> like other thing they are not visible in aerial imagery [3].
>
> The motivation to not map as coastline are not political, but
> technical. The political issues were solved at least 60 years ago,
> with scientific consensus. [1][2] There is no other place where the
> coastline could be placed. There has been, and there is wide
> consensus in both local communities (i cannot say absolute consensus
> without checking). The limit of Rio de la Plata is historically
> recognized by politics and scientists. The legal, or official
> definition is settled at least 60 years ago, by political means
> (binational protocols, UN international treaty, IHO definitions), y
> scientific studies. Also newer/modern scientific studies and papers,
> based on salinity, batimetry, water flows, sediments, mathematical
> models, etc. confirms what the old scientific studies and political
> have agreed that the limit of the ocean is between Punta del Este and
> Punta Rasa, so there should be no discussion here. Besides this, in
> 2016 the UN extended the sovereignty rights of Uruguay in the
> continental platform for 350 nautical miles [11], but this is another
> issue and is not mapped yet. And speaking about politics, both navies
> pursues industrial fishing pirates, mostly from Asia.
>
> This is just a very width river, with a basin size like India, or 10
> times Germany, it obviously brings a very large amount o fresh water,
> which influences the salinity of the ocean waters several tenths of
> km inner into the ocean from Punta Rasa or Punta del Este.
>
> According to some people, mapping the coastline where I think where
> it should be, and where it was since the river was mapped at least 6
> years ago, that kind of mapping, maybe some renders create artifacts
> because they consider this as inner water and not ocean. I see no
> problem in that, because in the aerial photo [3] the colour of the
> river is like any other river, and not like an ocean. For example, i
> linked two videos showing the clearly the difference between Rio de
> la Plata and Atlantic Ocean [9][10]
>
> If you choose to map this riverbank as coastline, is just mapping for
> convenience (for convenience of the renderer), to see the world map
> as you prefer to see it, but it is not modelling the world as it is.
>
> By the way, the problem in january 2020 with the rendering toolchain
> fails were not caused for moving the coastline to the ocean/river
> limit, as it was there for several years, but were caused by a
> changeset which changed the tagging of the riverbank as coastline.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 4. Aug 2020, at 14:16, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> 
> Almost all of the arguments you bring up here are cultural or political 
> in nature.  


Christoph, I guess it could be seen from looking at the email headers or when 
reading in a threaded view, but for the convenience of everybody I’d ask you to 
add a bit of context to your contributions here (in particular to whom you 
reply)

Thank you 
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

Almost all of the arguments you bring up here are cultural or political 
in nature.  Discussing those will lead us nowhere.  Hence my suggestion 
to you in the other mail to consider this exclusively from the physical 
geographic perspective.

The only point i could identify in your writing that is not 
cultural/political in nature is the claim that the Rio de la Plata was 
first mapped 6 years ago when the riverbank polygon was created.  That 
is not true.  The Rio de la Plata was mapped long before - first 
significant parts started in 2011 already, by end 2012 the mapping was 
complete:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WK9

and it stayed tagged as natural=coastline until you changed that in:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/20290034

After that there were countless attempts to move up the coastline 
closure again - all of which however were soon reverted.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 03 August 2020, mural...@montevideo.com.uy wrote:
>
> i will try.
>
>
> in my last mail i'm questioning the coastline placement in several
> rivers. so,
> -what are we mapping the coastline for?
> -what we want from the "coastline"?
> -what questions are we going to answer, or could we answer, with that
> modeling of the coastline/world? (or we just draw it for the
> renderer)

In general in OSM

* we are not mapping for a specific purpose, we are documenting local 
knowledge about the verifiable geography of the world.
* what individual tags mean and how they are to be used is decided by 
the mappers using them - but not individually on a case-by-case basis 
but collectively by all the mappers of OSM together.

The problem we have here is that there seems to be a fairly massive 
discrepancy between what some local mappers in the region seem to view 
natural=coastline to mean and what mappers in other parts of the world 
have in mind there.  My request for you to formulate a universal rule 
is meant to gauge that difference and evaluate options for a consensus.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 03.08.20 22:41, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I have previously proposed that estuaries should be mapped by extending
> the coastline upstream to the limit of the estuary, and also mapping the
> area of the estuary as water with water=estuary

I wonder if we're not becoming too theoretical by thinking about
scientific definitions. I know that we strive to have something
"verifiable" but at the same time I have a bad feeling about there being
a "coastline" in OSM where there is definitely no "coast" within dozens
of kilometers.

Sure, I can say "don't be too literal, natural=coastline doesn't mean
there has to be a coast, it's just for closing ocean polygons" but that
doesn't make it better really.

Sure, with current ocean drawing technology we need a "coastline" across
every river estuary at some point... but perhaps we should think beyond
that?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 06:43, Joseph Eisenberg 
wrote:

>
> I have previously proposed that estuaries should be mapped by extending
> the coastline upstream to the limit of the estuary, and also mapping the
> area of the estuary as water with water=estuary
>

Good solution!

It's not one thing or the other, so use a third (very accurate) term for
these areas.

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Consider the Saint Lawrence river. Often the Rio de la Plata is claimed to
be the widest river estuary in the world, but some maps of the Saint
Lawrence estuary show it extending all the way to the eastern tip of Île
d'Anticosti (Anticosti Island), which would make the mouth of the river
estuary over 300 kilometers wide.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6122656 - the river centerline,
which extends to the island

The current mapping of the lower estuary, extending to the west end of the
island: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4555382#map=8/49.216/-63.885

Wikipedia map of the Saint Lawrence river watershed, showing the estuary
extending to the east side of the island:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Lawrence_River#/media/File:Grlakes_lawrence_map.png

Based on how the Rio de la Plata is currently mapped, it seems that the
Saint Lawrence coastline would have to be moved all the way down to the
very end of the estuary.

However, estuaries are not merely rivers, they are also part of the marine
environment. Just like the Rio de la Plata, the Saint Lawrence estuary is
part of the marine environment, as well as influenced by the river.

I have previously proposed that estuaries should be mapped by extending the
coastline upstream to the limit of the estuary, and also mapping the area
of the estuary as water with water=estuary

This will allow database users to create a reasonable set of water polygons
which include the oceans and all marginal marine water bodies, including
bays, straits and estuaries, while also allowing local mappers to map their
river estuaries as they see fit.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 12:48 PM  wrote:

>
>
> - Mensaje original -
> > De: "Christoph Hormann" 
> > Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org>
> > Enviados: Lunes, 3 de Agosto 2020 16:27:12
> > Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war
>
> > On Monday 03 August 2020, mural...@montevideo.com.uy wrote:
> >>
> >> The scientific view, and what can be experienced or observed here is
> >> that the coastline ends in Punta del Este. And the line to Punta Rasa
> >> is a good average of the limit. Where should be put the coasline if
> >> not here?
> >
> > Hello muralito,
> >
> > could you formulate a generic rule for coastline placement similar to
> > what i formulated in
> >
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
> >
> > that
> >
> > (a) allows for the coastline placement you favor in case of the Rio de
> > la Plata
> > (b) is based on verifiable physical geography criteria that can
> > practically be checked by mappers and
> > (c) that is compatible to most of the current coastline placements at
> > river mouths around the world?
> >
> > If you can more easily and more precisely formulate such rule in Spanish
> > that would be fine - i am sure we could manage to translate.
> >
> > --
> > Christoph Hormann
> > http://www.imagico.de/
> >
> > ___
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> i will try.
>
>
> in my last mail i'm questioning the coastline placement in several rivers.
> so,
> -what are we mapping the coastline for?
> -what we want from the "coastline"?
> -what questions are we going to answer, or could we answer, with that
> modeling of the coastline/world? (or we just draw it for the renderer)
>
> i have read everywhere that OSM is not the map, is the data, and we have
> created and are creating these data for some purpose.
>
> Regards,
> M.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
>
> Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin
> costo.
>
> Informate si aplicás aquí.
>
> mvdfactura.uy
>
>
> ---
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[muralito]

> De: "Kevin Kenny" 
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Enviados: Domingo, 2 de Agosto 2020 11:03:09
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 6:42 PM Paul Norman via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org > wrote:

>> Starting locally, the Fraser River has a strong tidal influence 25km
>> upstream of the coastline/riverbank edge. Fishers report a tidal
>> influence 90km upstream. Wikipedia says the Columbia has tidal influence
>> up to the first dam, which is 120km upstream of the coastline/riverbank
>> edge. There are tidal forecasts published for 75km upstream of the edge.

>> Looking in Europe, the Thames is tidal for 80km upstream of the
>> coastline/riverbank edge.

> Near to me, the Hudson River is an even more extreme example of what you're
> talking about. It is tidal for 134 nautical miles (248 km) north of Mile Zero
> (which is the tip of the Battery, where it enters New York Harbor). The salt
> front ranges from some distance out in New York Harbor during the spring
> snowmelt to about Poughkeepsie (124 km upriver) in a dry summer. Because of
> resonance effects, the tidal range is actually greatest right at the Federal
> Dam in Troy, the northernmost extent of the estuarine region. If you say that
> Troy is on the coast, people will look at you as if you have two heads. If you
> start to explain that well, the river is tidal, and dredged to a depth of 9m 
> to
> accommodate oceangoing vessels, and (yada, yada, yada), they'll say, 'yeah, I
> suppose if you want to be THAT way about it,' and file you mentally under
> 'insufferable pedant.'

> Much farther afield, the Amazon is tidal at least as far as Óbidos, Brasil,
> nearly a thousand km from the river's mouth.

> As a practical matter, given the woes of coastline maintenance, pushing the
> coastline for tens or hundreds of km up most of the world's rivers would be a
> disaster.

We should'nt push up the coastline. i think that tagging coastline inland 
rivers is wrong, no matter the tides. but it depends on what we are using 
"coastline" for. 

And the Amazon mouth should be fixed, but the brazilian is a very active 
community and could do what it should be done by themselves. 

Regards, 
M. 







---



Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin costo.



Informate si aplicás aquí.



mvdfactura.uy



---



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[muralito]

- Mensaje original -
> De: "Christoph Hormann" 
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Enviados: Lunes, 3 de Agosto 2020 16:27:12
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> On Monday 03 August 2020, mural...@montevideo.com.uy wrote:
>>
>> The scientific view, and what can be experienced or observed here is
>> that the coastline ends in Punta del Este. And the line to Punta Rasa
>> is a good average of the limit. Where should be put the coasline if
>> not here?
> 
> Hello muralito,
> 
> could you formulate a generic rule for coastline placement similar to
> what i formulated in
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
> 
> that
> 
> (a) allows for the coastline placement you favor in case of the Rio de
> la Plata
> (b) is based on verifiable physical geography criteria that can
> practically be checked by mappers and
> (c) that is compatible to most of the current coastline placements at
> river mouths around the world?
> 
> If you can more easily and more precisely formulate such rule in Spanish
> that would be fine - i am sure we could manage to translate.
> 
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


i will try.


in my last mail i'm questioning the coastline placement in several rivers.
so, 
-what are we mapping the coastline for?
-what we want from the "coastline"?
-what questions are we going to answer, or could we answer, with that modeling 
of the coastline/world? (or we just draw it for the renderer)

i have read everywhere that OSM is not the map, is the data, and we have 
created and are creating these data for some purpose.

Regards,
M.




---

Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin costo.

Informate si aplicás aquí.

mvdfactura.uy

---



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[muralito]

- Mensaje original -
> De: "Christoph Hormann" 
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Enviados: Domingo, 2 de Agosto 2020 7:29:05
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> On Sunday 02 August 2020, Paul Norman via Tagging wrote:
>>
>> I would consider an area mapped as water both with natural=coastline
>> and waterway=riverbank or natural=water in error. I haven't seen any
>> cases where this is done.
> 
> It is long term established practice at the Elbe and Weser in Germany:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/57390762
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/250290462
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3352832
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28115705
> 
> If you consider that incorrect you also have to ask yourself if you draw
> the same conclusion for natural=bay and natural=strait polygons:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1675626
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9072799
> 
> Even though the overall range of positions is not that large the
> specific placement of the coastline closure is often not done with a
> lot of consideration.  That would certainly very much improve if we had
> visual feedback on the water differentiation in OSM-Carto:
> 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4128
> 
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


hi.

regarding the coastline placement, e. g. it seems that Hamburg is almost a 
coastal city, because altough it is 90+km from the sea, it is only 10 km away 
from the natural coastline...
all the river is clearly inner waters, and still mapped as coastline. it have 
no sense.
if you use coastline to separate inland (or continents) from seas, this river 
is clearly a river, not an ocean. the coastline should be placed at the mouth.

If someones wants to use OSM coastline to see answer a simple binary question, 
like I'm in the ocean or not, i click on the map in coordinates 51.636686, 
0.649116 and what should be the answer? "no" because is not ocean. well, with 
the current mapping of the coastline is "yes" altough it is more than 20 Km 
inland.
If not, what OSM data should we use to answer this basic question?

Regards,
M.





---

Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin costo.

Informate si aplicás aquí.

mvdfactura.uy

---



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 03 August 2020, mural...@montevideo.com.uy wrote:
>
> The scientific view, and what can be experienced or observed here is
> that the coastline ends in Punta del Este. And the line to Punta Rasa
> is a good average of the limit. Where should be put the coasline if
> not here?

Hello muralito,

could you formulate a generic rule for coastline placement similar to 
what i formulated in

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement

that 

(a) allows for the coastline placement you favor in case of the Rio de 
la Plata
(b) is based on verifiable physical geography criteria that can 
practically be checked by mappers and
(c) that is compatible to most of the current coastline placements at 
river mouths around the world?

If you can more easily and more precisely formulate such rule in Spanish 
that would be fine - i am sure we could manage to translate.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[muralito]

- Mensaje original -
> De: "Christoph Hormann" 
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Enviados: Sábado, 1 de Agosto 2020 14:52:40
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> On Friday 31 July 2020, Andy Townsend wrote:
>>
>> For what it's worth, neither extreme position looks the best answer
>> to me - looking at the salinity change between river to ocean at
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716
>> (see
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716
>> for the key picture) and looking at
>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Rio_de_la_Plata_BA_2.JPG suggests
>> a location some way between the two.  Despite the NASA photo it looks
>> like there isn't a "step change" in salinity - and of course values
>> will fluctuate based on winds and tides etc.
> 
> Surface salinity is not a good universal measure for the transit between
> the riverine and the maritime domain because
> 
> a) depending on the threshold you would exclude large maritime areas
> like the Baltic Sea, Hudson Bay or the Sea of Azov.
> b) at the mouth of a river salinity often varies significantly between
> the surface layer and deeper water because saltwater is heavier.
> 
> Suspended particles are also often not a good measure because we are
> usually talking about very fine particles that stay suspended for a
> long time and in shallow water currents can re-suspend silt from the
> bottom as well.  The presence of suspended particles is therefore an
> indication of a lack of large volume dilution of the water in the area,
> not of the dominance of river water over sea water in general.  See for
> example
> 
> http://maps.imagico.de/#map=7/32.361/122.212=en=sat=10
> 
> where strongly visible turbidity reaches up to more than 50km from the
> shore into the open sea.
> 
> As i wrote in my old proposal on the transit placement looking at the
> cross section of the river and the resulting average water flow
> velocity due to discharge gives you a relatively good idea about the
> situation.  In case of the Rio de la Plata you have an average
> discharge of 22000m^3/s.  At the claimed baseline you have an average
> water depth of about 20m and a width of more than 200km that is an
> average waterflow velocity of 6mm/s.  At Montevideo with a width of
> about 100km and a depth of about 8m you get an average velocity of
> 3cm/s.  That is still smaller than typical coastal currents induced by
> tides and wind (which the paper you cited confirms).  But you are not
> that far off any more and around where the average water depth is about
> 5m you will have reached the lower limit my proposal suggests.
> 
> I still think the people best qualified to make the assessment where
> exactly the transit is best placed are those with local knowledge, who
> have first hand knowledge of the effects of waves, tides and currents
> on the shore over the course of the year as long as their perspective
> is not dominated by political considerations (i.e. they are able to
> look at this purely from a physical geography perspective).
> 

Right. For all this reasons the best place to put the coastline is in the line.
The only reason to continue tagging the coastline inland in the river is to 
render it,
 or to see it in the render like some people thinks it should be, but it is not 
the real coastline.

The scientific view, and what can be experienced or observed here is that the 
coastline ends in Punta del Este. 
And the line to Punta Rasa is a good average of the limit. Where should be put 
the coasline if not here?

Regards,
M.



---

Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin costo.

Informate si aplicás aquí.

mvdfactura.uy

---



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[muralito]

> De: "Alan Mackie" 
> Para: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
> Enviados: Sábado, 1 de Agosto 2020 13:26:06
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 07:21, Paul Norman via Tagging < 
> tagging@openstreetmap.org
> > wrote:

>> On 2020-07-31 8:21 a.m., Andy Townsend wrote:

>>> On 26/05/2020 00:20, Alan Mackie wrote:

>>>> Has this edit war stabilised?

>>>> Apparently it has been blocking coastline updates across the whole world 
>>>> for
>>>> months now.

>>>> https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/land-polygons.html
>>>> https://github.com/fossgis/osmdata/issues/7

>>> (picking this thread up again because there still hasn't exactly been a 
>>> meeting
>>> of minds here)

>>> land polygons have been generated (see
>>> https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/land-polygons.html ) and
>>> https://github.com/fossgis/osmdata/issues/7 has been resolved by manually
>>> "releasing" the coastline. The current situation in OSM is
>>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WD8 - at the time of writing this the coastline
>>> crosses the river north of Buenos Aires.

>>> However, edits are continuing (see
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88787419 ). I'm not convinced that
>>> moving to one of two extremes, even a small amount at a time, is a good idea
>>> until there's actually been discussion between the proponents of the various
>>> positions.

>>> For what it's worth, neither extreme position looks the best answer to me -
>>> looking at the salinity change between river to ocean at
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716 (see
>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716 for the 
>>> key
>>> picture) and looking at
>>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Rio_de_la_Plata_BA_2.JPG suggests a
>>> location some way between the two. Despite the NASA photo it looks like 
>>> there
>>> isn't a "step change" in salinity - and of course values will fluctuate 
>>> based
>>> on winds and tides etc
>> I live near the coast and have done coastline processing, including a great 
>> deal
>> worldwide during the redaction.

>> Salinity and territorial control have seldom been considerations in where the
>> break between water mapped as waterway=riverbank and natural=coastline that I
>> have seen. The break is chosen as a convenient place for mappers and a common
>> view of where the coast of the ocean is, not based on scientific salinity
>> criteria. For territorial control, look at all the inlets along the BC or
>> Norwegian coasts.

> Perhaps I am an overly literal follower of the wiki, but I had always assumed
> the coastline should continue inland as far as the tide continues to be
> noticeable. Mediterranean mapping might be an issue, but elsewhere I think 
> this
> is fairly clear?

> If the water is fresh or the waterway still appears to be a river, canal etc,
> then it seems reasonable that they should also have those tags as well. The
> coastline and riverbank tags aren't fighting for a common key, so it's not a
> direct tagging conflict.

> As for territorial control, there are archipelagic states with territorial
> waters despite large gaps between all their islands. I'm not sure why inlets 
> or
> bays pose a problem?

there is no noticeable tides. tides here are meterological, not astronomical. 
e.g the river between Buenos Aires and Colonia is 3m depth average, with a few 
channels to navigate. if you are not cautious, with a change of wind the water 
withdraws and your sailboat remains in the mud without notice. 

Regards, 
M. 







---



Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin costo.



Informate si aplicás aquí.



mvdfactura.uy



---



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[muralito]

> De: "Paul Norman via Tagging" 
> Para: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> CC: "Paul Norman" 
> Enviados: Sábado, 1 de Agosto 2020 3:18:34
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> On 2020-07-31 8:21 a.m., Andy Townsend wrote:

>> On 26/05/2020 00:20, Alan Mackie wrote:

>>> Has this edit war stabilised?

>>> Apparently it has been blocking coastline updates across the whole world for
>>> months now.

>>> https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/land-polygons.html
>>> https://github.com/fossgis/osmdata/issues/7

>> (picking this thread up again because there still hasn't exactly been a 
>> meeting
>> of minds here)

>> land polygons have been generated (see
>> https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/land-polygons.html ) and
>> https://github.com/fossgis/osmdata/issues/7 has been resolved by manually
>> "releasing" the coastline. The current situation in OSM is
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WD8 - at the time of writing this the coastline
>> crosses the river north of Buenos Aires.

>> However, edits are continuing (see
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88787419 ). I'm not convinced that
>> moving to one of two extremes, even a small amount at a time, is a good idea
>> until there's actually been discussion between the proponents of the various
>> positions.

>> For what it's worth, neither extreme position looks the best answer to me -
>> looking at the salinity change between river to ocean at
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716 (see
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716 for the 
>> key
>> picture) and looking at
>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Rio_de_la_Plata_BA_2.JPG suggests a
>> location some way between the two. Despite the NASA photo it looks like there
>> isn't a "step change" in salinity - and of course values will fluctuate based
>> on winds and tides etc
> I live near the coast and have done coastline processing, including a great 
> deal
> worldwide during the redaction.

> Salinity and territorial control have seldom been considerations in where the
> break between water mapped as waterway=riverbank and natural=coastline that I
> have seen. The break is chosen as a convenient place for mappers and a common
> view of where the coast of the ocean is, not based on scientific salinity
> criteria. For territorial control, look at all the inlets along the BC or
> Norwegian coasts.

Hi. 

for sure, the coast of the ocean starts in Punta del Este, Uruguay and in Punta 
Rasa (San Clemente). My personal experience is in Punta del Este, and it is 
incredible how the beaches changes from this point to the east and to the west. 
There are two very different kind of coast, to the east one with waves, wind, 
salinity, notable changes in the seabed of the beaches, currents, cold salty 
water, etc. The other one to the west is calm, almost no winds, no currents, 
very small waves of less than 40-50 cm, very low salinity, fresh water not so 
cold. 

The scientific studies you can read matches what can be seen here in the 
ground, in the beaches, and in the videos i linked in my previous mail. 
No, its hard to see it from aerial imagery, but it seems that i'm discusing 
with armchair mappers, and they dont put any argument of why the coastline in 
between of Punta del Este-Punta Rasa is a bad idea. For the obviously changing 
limit of the river/ocean, this line is "like an average", like the mean high 
water springs is for the ocean shore. 

on the other hand, what about the local knowledge? the on-the-ground survey? 
those does'nt have value in this discussion? 

Regards, 
M. 







---



Con el nuevo beneficio fiscal, tu facturación electrónica puede ser sin costo.



Informate si aplicás aquí.



mvdfactura.uy



---



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[muralito]

Hi,

- Mensaje original -
> De: "frederik" 
> Para: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> Enviados: Viernes, 31 de Julio 2020 19:16:50
> Asunto: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

> Hi,
> 
> I don't know the region myself so I am limited to anecdotal evidence as
> found on the web:
> 
> * Montevideo clearly brands itself as having "a coast" (from
> welcomeuruguay.com: "Costa de Oro" (Gold Coast) is the name given to the
> great variety of beaches stretching from La Barra de Carrasco, in
> Montevideo, to Solís Grande Creek, ...)
> 
> * next city east is called "Ciudad de la Costa"
> 
> * Buenos Aires, on the other hand, seems to be mainly referred to as
> being "on the SHORE of Rio de la Plata"
> 
> * Wikipedia entry on Montevideo calls Rio de la Plata an "arm of the
> Atlantic ocean"
> 
> It is obvious that, regarding the official definition, both countries
> have a shared interest of defining the coast as far out on the sea as
> legally possible. Therefore, I am not sure if our usual approach of
> "letting the locals decide" will work here. Our other usual approach is
> that of "truth on the ground" and the 200km+ straight line from Punte
> del Este to Cabo San Antonio certainly stretches *anybody's* definiotion
> of a coastline!
> 
> The largest estuary in the United States, Chesapeake Bay, is almost
> completely mapped as coastline, only changing to a natural=river polygon
> very far inland - though I haven't researched currents or salinity.
> 
> Are there other examples of large bays/estuaries?
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



As with any terms in OSM context, we should'nt literaly translate the terms 
betwen languages because we can incurr in errors. Sometimes also between 
dialects of the same language the same word have different meanings. In this 
case, "coastline" should'nt be translated to spanish as "costa". Acording to 
RAE.es (official institution for the spanish language), it defines "costa" as 
"Orilla del mar, de un río, de un lago, etc., y tierra que está cerca de ella". 
Translated, in spanish "costa" does not mean only seashore ("Orilla de mar"), 
it could be a river bank ("Orilla de río"), lake shore ("Orilla de lago". So 
that any city or comunity defines itself as "costa" or "costera", or "SHORE" or 
any other term, is not related to the OSM coastline definition. It is also 
different from the definition of "coast" from Oxford Dictionary (6th edition 
that i have in hand), which refers to the land besides the ocean or the sea.

In some cases, like this, the wikipedia article lacks the accuracy to define 
river. The river starts in Paralelo Hito Punta Gorda and ends in the line 
between Punta del Este and Punta Rasa.

Here in Uruguay we have two "coast", the oceanic coast (natural=coastline) 
which begins in Punta del Este and goes to the border with Brazil.
The other "coast" is the river, which is why Montevideo, Buenos Aires, etc, are 
known as "ciudad ribereña" (riverside city).
The oceanic coast in the Argentina side, also starts in Punta Rasa. Those two 
different coast are very different
All this facts are clearly visible and verifiable being here. Just like other 
thing they are not visible in aerial imagery [3]. 

The motivation to not map as coastline are not political, but technical. The 
political issues were solved at least 60 years ago, with scientific consensus. 
[1][2]
There is no other place where the coastline could be placed. There has been, 
and there is wide consensus in both local communities (i cannot say absolute 
consensus without checking). The limit of Rio de la Plata is historically 
recognized by politics and scientists. The legal, or official definition is 
settled at least 60 years ago, by political means (binational protocols, UN 
international treaty, IHO definitions), y scientific studies. Also newer/modern 
scientific studies and papers, based on salinity, batimetry, water flows, 
sediments, mathematical models, etc. confirms what the old scientific studies 
and political have agreed that the limit of the ocean is between Punta del Este 
and Punta Rasa, so there should be no discussion here.
Besides this, in 2016 the UN extended the sovereignty rights of Uruguay in the 
continental platform for 350 nautical miles [11], but this is another issue and 
is not mapped yet. And speaking about politics, both navies pursues industrial 
fishing pirates, most

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 6:42 PM Paul Norman via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Starting locally, the Fraser River has a strong tidal influence 25km
> upstream of the coastline/riverbank edge. Fishers report a tidal
> influence 90km upstream. Wikipedia says the Columbia has tidal influence
> up to the first dam, which is 120km upstream of the coastline/riverbank
> edge. There are tidal forecasts published for 75km upstream of the edge.
>
> Looking in Europe, the Thames is tidal for 80km upstream of the
> coastline/riverbank edge.
>

Near to me, the Hudson River is an even more extreme example of what you're
talking about. It is tidal for 134 nautical miles (248 km) north of Mile
Zero (which is the tip of the Battery, where it enters New York Harbor).
The salt front ranges from some distance out in New York Harbor during the
spring snowmelt to about Poughkeepsie (124 km upriver) in a dry summer.
Because of resonance effects, the tidal range is actually greatest right at
the Federal Dam in Troy, the northernmost extent of the estuarine region.
If you say that Troy is on the coast, people will look at you as if you
have two heads. If you start to explain that well, the river is tidal, and
dredged to a depth of 9m to accommodate oceangoing vessels, and (yada,
yada, yada), they'll say, 'yeah, I suppose if you want to be THAT way about
it,' and file you mentally under 'insufferable pedant.'

Much farther afield,  the Amazon is tidal at least as far as Óbidos,
Brasil, nearly a thousand km from the river's mouth.

As a practical matter, given the woes of coastline maintenance, pushing the
coastline for tens or hundreds of km up most of the world's rivers would be
a disaster.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 02 August 2020, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > If you consider that incorrect you also have to ask yourself if you
> > draw the same conclusion for natural=bay and natural=strait
> > polygons:
>
> didn’t you argue some time ago that natural=bay should only be placed
> as nodes because polygons were generally unverifiable? Maybe I’m
> remembering wrong...

That is a different matter - i don't think Paul based his objection on 
verifiability concerns.

As i demonstrated with my examples people map the tidal section of 
rivers outside the coastline both as riverbank polygons and bays.  
Discouraging the former would likely lead to people moving to the 
latter.

Also keep in mind that the non-timely coastline updates have also lead 
people to start mapping more with water polygons and less with 
coastline - because the coastline changes failed to show up in the map. 
See for example:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2805665

Hence the Rio de la Plata matter turned into kind of a self aggravating 
problem.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 2. Aug 2020, at 12:30, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> 
> If you consider that incorrect you also have to ask yourself if you draw 
> the same conclusion for natural=bay and natural=strait polygons:


didn’t you argue some time ago that natural=bay should only be placed as nodes 
because polygons were generally unverifiable? Maybe I’m remembering wrong...

Apart from this nitpicking for me it’s ok to have a river overlap with the sea 
at its mouth if the situation is „mixed“

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

On Sunday 02 August 2020, Paul Norman via Tagging wrote:
>
> I would consider an area mapped as water both with natural=coastline
> and waterway=riverbank or natural=water in error. I haven't seen any
> cases where this is done.

It is long term established practice at the Elbe and Weser in Germany:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/57390762
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/250290462

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3352832
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28115705

If you consider that incorrect you also have to ask yourself if you draw 
the same conclusion for natural=bay and natural=strait polygons:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1675626
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9072799

Even though the overall range of positions is not that large the 
specific placement of the coastline closure is often not done with a 
lot of consideration.  That would certainly very much improve if we had 
visual feedback on the water differentiation in OSM-Carto:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/4128

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Paul Norman via Tagging]

On 2020-08-01 9:26 a.m., Alan Mackie wrote:
Perhaps I am an overly literal follower of the wiki, but I had always 
assumed the coastline should continue inland as far as the tide 
continues to be noticeable. Mediterranean mapping might be an issue, 
but elsewhere I think this is fairly clear?


Starting locally, the Fraser River has a strong tidal influence 25km 
upstream of the coastline/riverbank edge. Fishers report a tidal 
influence 90km upstream. Wikipedia says the Columbia has tidal influence 
up to the first dam, which is 120km upstream of the coastline/riverbank 
edge. There are tidal forecasts published for 75km upstream of the edge.


Looking in Europe, the Thames is tidal for 80km upstream of the 
coastline/riverbank edge.


If the water is fresh or the waterway still appears to be a river, 
canal etc, then it seems reasonable that they should also have those 
tags as well. The coastline and riverbank tags aren't fighting for a 
common key, so it's not a direct tagging conflict.


I would consider an area mapped as water both with natural=coastline and 
waterway=riverbank or natural=water in error. I haven't seen any cases 
where this is done.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 31 July 2020, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, neither extreme position looks the best answer
> to me - looking at the salinity change between river to ocean at
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716
> (see
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716
> for the key picture) and looking at
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Rio_de_la_Plata_BA_2.JPG suggests
> a location some way between the two.  Despite the NASA photo it looks
> like there isn't a "step change" in salinity - and of course values
> will fluctuate based on winds and tides etc.

Surface salinity is not a good universal measure for the transit between 
the riverine and the maritime domain because

a) depending on the threshold you would exclude large maritime areas 
like the Baltic Sea, Hudson Bay or the Sea of Azov.
b) at the mouth of a river salinity often varies significantly between 
the surface layer and deeper water because saltwater is heavier.

Suspended particles are also often not a good measure because we are 
usually talking about very fine particles that stay suspended for a 
long time and in shallow water currents can re-suspend silt from the 
bottom as well.  The presence of suspended particles is therefore an 
indication of a lack of large volume dilution of the water in the area, 
not of the dominance of river water over sea water in general.  See for 
example

http://maps.imagico.de/#map=7/32.361/122.212=en=sat=10

where strongly visible turbidity reaches up to more than 50km from the 
shore into the open sea.

As i wrote in my old proposal on the transit placement looking at the 
cross section of the river and the resulting average water flow 
velocity due to discharge gives you a relatively good idea about the 
situation.  In case of the Rio de la Plata you have an average 
discharge of 22000m^3/s.  At the claimed baseline you have an average 
water depth of about 20m and a width of more than 200km that is an 
average waterflow velocity of 6mm/s.  At Montevideo with a width of 
about 100km and a depth of about 8m you get an average velocity of 
3cm/s.  That is still smaller than typical coastal currents induced by 
tides and wind (which the paper you cited confirms).  But you are not 
that far off any more and around where the average water depth is about 
5m you will have reached the lower limit my proposal suggests.

I still think the people best qualified to make the assessment where 
exactly the transit is best placed are those with local knowledge, who 
have first hand knowledge of the effects of waves, tides and currents 
on the shore over the course of the year as long as their perspective 
is not dominated by political considerations (i.e. they are able to 
look at this purely from a physical geography perspective).

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Jez Nicholson]

Yes, and no. It gets tricky. Look at the Thames, which is tidal up to
Teddington Lock, but you wouldn't really say that Richmond is "on the
coast" now would you? But for flood risk assessment it is in danger of
tidal/coastal flooding.

On Sat, 1 Aug 2020, 17:27 Alan Mackie,  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 07:21, Paul Norman via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2020-07-31 8:21 a.m., Andy Townsend wrote:
>>
>> On 26/05/2020 00:20, Alan Mackie wrote:
>>
>> Has this edit war stabilised?
>>
>> Apparently it has been blocking coastline updates across the whole world
>> for *months *now.
>>
>> https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/land-polygons.html
>> https://github.com/fossgis/osmdata/issues/7
>>
>> (picking this thread up again because there still hasn't exactly been a
>> meeting of minds here)
>>
>> land polygons have been generated (see
>> https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/land-polygons.html ) and
>> https://github.com/fossgis/osmdata/issues/7 has been resolved by
>> manually "releasing" the coastline.  The current situation in OSM is
>> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WD8 - at the time of writing this the
>> coastline crosses the river north of Buenos Aires.
>>
>> However, edits are continuing (see
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88787419 ).  I'm not convinced
>> that moving to one of two extremes, even a small amount at a time, is a
>> good idea until there's actually been discussion between the proponents of
>> the various positions.
>>
>> For what it's worth, neither extreme position looks the best answer to me
>> - looking at the salinity change between river to ocean at
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716 (see
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716 for
>> the key picture) and looking at
>> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Rio_de_la_Plata_BA_2.JPG suggests a
>> location some way between the two.  Despite the NASA photo it looks like
>> there isn't a "step change" in salinity - and of course values will
>> fluctuate based on winds and tides etc
>>
>>
>> I live near the coast and have done coastline processing, including a
>> great deal worldwide during the redaction.
>>
>> Salinity and territorial control have seldom been considerations in where
>> the break between water mapped as waterway=riverbank and natural=coastline
>> that I have seen. The break is chosen as a convenient place for mappers and
>> a common view of where the coast of the ocean is, not based on scientific
>> salinity criteria. For territorial control, look at all the inlets along
>> the BC or Norwegian coasts.
>>
> Perhaps I am an overly literal follower of the wiki, but I had always
> assumed the coastline should continue inland as far as the tide continues
> to be noticeable. Mediterranean mapping might be an issue, but elsewhere I
> think this is fairly clear?
>
> If the water is fresh or the waterway still appears to be a river, canal
> etc, then it seems reasonable that they should also have those tags as
> well. The coastline and riverbank tags aren't fighting for a common key, so
> it's not a direct tagging conflict.
>
> As for territorial control, there are archipelagic states with territorial
> waters despite large gaps between all their islands. I'm not sure why
> inlets or bays pose a problem?
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Alan Mackie]

On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 07:21, Paul Norman via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> On 2020-07-31 8:21 a.m., Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> On 26/05/2020 00:20, Alan Mackie wrote:
>
> Has this edit war stabilised?
>
> Apparently it has been blocking coastline updates across the whole world
> for *months *now.
>
> https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/land-polygons.html
> https://github.com/fossgis/osmdata/issues/7
>
> (picking this thread up again because there still hasn't exactly been a
> meeting of minds here)
>
> land polygons have been generated (see
> https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/land-polygons.html ) and
> https://github.com/fossgis/osmdata/issues/7 has been resolved by manually
> "releasing" the coastline.  The current situation in OSM is
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WD8 - at the time of writing this the
> coastline crosses the river north of Buenos Aires.
>
> However, edits are continuing (see
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88787419 ).  I'm not convinced
> that moving to one of two extremes, even a small amount at a time, is a
> good idea until there's actually been discussion between the proponents of
> the various positions.
>
> For what it's worth, neither extreme position looks the best answer to me
> - looking at the salinity change between river to ocean at
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716 (see
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716 for
> the key picture) and looking at
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Rio_de_la_Plata_BA_2.JPG suggests a
> location some way between the two.  Despite the NASA photo it looks like
> there isn't a "step change" in salinity - and of course values will
> fluctuate based on winds and tides etc
>
>
> I live near the coast and have done coastline processing, including a
> great deal worldwide during the redaction.
>
> Salinity and territorial control have seldom been considerations in where
> the break between water mapped as waterway=riverbank and natural=coastline
> that I have seen. The break is chosen as a convenient place for mappers and
> a common view of where the coast of the ocean is, not based on scientific
> salinity criteria. For territorial control, look at all the inlets along
> the BC or Norwegian coasts.
>
Perhaps I am an overly literal follower of the wiki, but I had always
assumed the coastline should continue inland as far as the tide continues
to be noticeable. Mediterranean mapping might be an issue, but elsewhere I
think this is fairly clear?

If the water is fresh or the waterway still appears to be a river, canal
etc, then it seems reasonable that they should also have those tags as
well. The coastline and riverbank tags aren't fighting for a common key, so
it's not a direct tagging conflict.

As for territorial control, there are archipelagic states with territorial
waters despite large gaps between all their islands. I'm not sure why
inlets or bays pose a problem?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Paul Norman via Tagging]

On 2020-07-31 8:21 a.m., Andy Townsend wrote:

On 26/05/2020 00:20, Alan Mackie wrote:

Has this edit war stabilised?

Apparently it has been blocking coastline updates across the whole 
world for /months /now.


https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/land-polygons.html
https://github.com/fossgis/osmdata/issues/7


(picking this thread up again because there still hasn't exactly been 
a meeting of minds here)


land polygons have been generated (see 
https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/land-polygons.html ) and 
https://github.com/fossgis/osmdata/issues/7 has been resolved by 
manually "releasing" the coastline.  The current situation in OSM is 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WD8 - at the time of writing this the 
coastline crosses the river north of Buenos Aires.


However, edits are continuing (see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88787419 ).  I'm not convinced 
that moving to one of two extremes, even a small amount at a time, is 
a good idea until there's actually been discussion between the 
proponents of the various positions.


For what it's worth, neither extreme position looks the best answer to 
me - looking at the salinity change between river to ocean at 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716 
(see 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716 
for the key picture) and looking at 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Rio_de_la_Plata_BA_2.JPG suggests 
a location some way between the two.  Despite the NASA photo it looks 
like there isn't a "step change" in salinity - and of course values 
will fluctuate based on winds and tides etc




I live near the coast and have done coastline processing, including a 
great deal worldwide during the redaction.


Salinity and territorial control have seldom been considerations in 
where the break between water mapped as waterway=riverbank and 
natural=coastline that I have seen. The break is chosen as a convenient 
place for mappers and a common view of where the coast of the ocean is, 
not based on scientific salinity criteria. For territorial control, look 
at all the inlets along the BC or Norwegian coasts.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

I don't know the region myself so I am limited to anecdotal evidence as
found on the web:

* Montevideo clearly brands itself as having "a coast" (from
welcomeuruguay.com: "Costa de Oro" (Gold Coast) is the name given to the
great variety of beaches stretching from La Barra de Carrasco, in
Montevideo, to Solís Grande Creek, ...)

* next city east is called "Ciudad de la Costa"

* Buenos Aires, on the other hand, seems to be mainly referred to as
being "on the SHORE of Rio de la Plata"

* Wikipedia entry on Montevideo calls Rio de la Plata an "arm of the
Atlantic ocean"

It is obvious that, regarding the official definition, both countries
have a shared interest of defining the coast as far out on the sea as
legally possible. Therefore, I am not sure if our usual approach of
"letting the locals decide" will work here. Our other usual approach is
that of "truth on the ground" and the 200km+ straight line from Punte
del Este to Cabo San Antonio certainly stretches *anybody's* definiotion
of a coastline!

The largest estuary in the United States, Chesapeake Bay, is almost
completely mapped as coastline, only changing to a natural=river polygon
very far inland - though I haven't researched currents or salinity.

Are there other examples of large bays/estuaries?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/05/2020 00:20, Alan Mackie wrote:

Has this edit war stabilised?

Apparently it has been blocking coastline updates across the whole 
world for /months /now.


https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/land-polygons.html 

https://github.com/fossgis/osmdata/issues/7 



(picking this thread up again because there still hasn't exactly been a 
meeting of minds here)


land polygons have been generated (see 
https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/land-polygons.html ) and 
https://github.com/fossgis/osmdata/issues/7 has been resolved by 
manually "releasing" the coastline.  The current situation in OSM is 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/WD8 - at the time of writing this the 
coastline crosses the river north of Buenos Aires.


However, edits are continuing (see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/88787419 ).  I'm not convinced 
that moving to one of two extremes, even a small amount at a time, is a 
good idea until there's actually been discussion between the proponents 
of the various positions.


For what it's worth, neither extreme position looks the best answer to 
me - looking at the salinity change between river to ocean at 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716 (see 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0307904X07000716 for 
the key picture) and looking at 
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Rio_de_la_Plata_BA_2.JPG suggests a 
location some way between the two.  Despite the NASA photo it looks like 
there isn't a "step change" in salinity - and of course values will 
fluctuate based on winds and tides etc.


Best Regards,

Andy



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Alan Mackie]

Has this edit war stabilised?

Apparently it has been blocking coastline updates across the whole world
for *months *now.

https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/land-polygons.html
https://github.com/fossgis/osmdata/issues/7


On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 11:40, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> On Monday 13 January 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> >
> > According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization
> > defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line
> > joining Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina",
> > which is what has been the case in OSM until now:
>
> That is a straw man argument that has been floated already at the very
> beginning when a riverbank polygon was first created for that (which
> was later than when the Río de la Plata was originally mapped by the
> way - just to clarify that).
>
> The IHO specifies an (obviously subjective and non-verifiable) set of
> limits of *oceans and seas*.  If anyone wants to use this as an
> argument that would make the Río de la Plata a marginal sea of the
> Atlantic Ocean and therefore to be placed outside the coastline.  So
> using the IHO as a source (in lieu of the verifiable geography in a
> Wikipedia-like fashion so to speak) kind of defeats the basic argument
> for the Río de la Plata to not be a maritime waterbody.
>
> > This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations
> > especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for
> > inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight
> > the coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a
> > coastal city.
>
> The main reason why the current mapping is vigorously maintained by some
> local mappers is political in nature.  Argentina and Uruguay want to
> claim this area as internal waters (and the administrative boundaries
> are mapped accordingly) but not every other nation accepts this claim.
> Presenting the Río de la Plata as a non-maritime waterbody in as many
> maps and data sets as possible would support such claim.
>
> My own solution as a data user to this has been to simply maintain a
> coastline cheatfile which marks this as a special case and moves the
> Río de la Plata polygon into the ocean polygon data.  This is
> unfortunate but way simpler than trying to fight against a widespread
> politically motivated conviction.  See also:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:maritime=yes
>
> > I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it
> > comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River
> >_transit_placement but this is still at the proposal stage.
>
> The IMO logical approach to placing the closing segment of the coastline
> at a river mouth according to the spirit of the OpenStreetMap project
> is to place it where for the verifiable view of humans the maritime
> domain ends and the riverine domain starts.  This is largely an
> ecological question.  Coastline and riverbanks are physical geography
> features so their position is to be defined by physically observable
> characteristics rather than politically defined limits.  Like so often
> (for example in case of the line between scrubland and woodland) this
> is often not a clearly visible sharp line but a transit.  There are
> however clearly observable limits to the extent of this transit.  The
> proposal cited tries to specify those.
>
> Back when i drafted the proposal there was very little interest in the
> subject except by those who were opposed to it for political reasons.
> Therefore i did not pursue it further.  But anyone is welcome to take
> it up again.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 13 January 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization
> defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line
> joining Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina",
> which is what has been the case in OSM until now:

That is a straw man argument that has been floated already at the very 
beginning when a riverbank polygon was first created for that (which 
was later than when the Río de la Plata was originally mapped by the 
way - just to clarify that).

The IHO specifies an (obviously subjective and non-verifiable) set of 
limits of *oceans and seas*.  If anyone wants to use this as an 
argument that would make the Río de la Plata a marginal sea of the 
Atlantic Ocean and therefore to be placed outside the coastline.  So 
using the IHO as a source (in lieu of the verifiable geography in a 
Wikipedia-like fashion so to speak) kind of defeats the basic argument 
for the Río de la Plata to not be a maritime waterbody.

> This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations
> especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for
> inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight
> the coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a
> coastal city.

The main reason why the current mapping is vigorously maintained by some 
local mappers is political in nature.  Argentina and Uruguay want to 
claim this area as internal waters (and the administrative boundaries 
are mapped accordingly) but not every other nation accepts this claim.  
Presenting the Río de la Plata as a non-maritime waterbody in as many 
maps and data sets as possible would support such claim.

My own solution as a data user to this has been to simply maintain a 
coastline cheatfile which marks this as a special case and moves the 
Río de la Plata polygon into the ocean polygon data.  This is 
unfortunate but way simpler than trying to fight against a widespread 
politically motivated conviction.  See also:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:maritime=yes

> I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it
> comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River
>_transit_placement but this is still at the proposal stage.

The IMO logical approach to placing the closing segment of the coastline 
at a river mouth according to the spirit of the OpenStreetMap project 
is to place it where for the verifiable view of humans the maritime 
domain ends and the riverine domain starts.  This is largely an 
ecological question.  Coastline and riverbanks are physical geography 
features so their position is to be defined by physically observable 
characteristics rather than politically defined limits.  Like so often 
(for example in case of the line between scrubland and woodland) this 
is often not a clearly visible sharp line but a transit.  There are 
however clearly observable limits to the extent of this transit.  The 
proposal cited tries to specify those.

Back when i drafted the proposal there was very little interest in the 
subject except by those who were opposed to it for political reasons.  
Therefore i did not pursue it further.  But anyone is welcome to take 
it up again.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Ok, I checked the changeset: https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390

I doesn't look like the user who did the revert of the change was
intending to edit-war, but was instead responding to the appearance of
the Rio de la Plata being rendered as land on some map styles.

This always happens for the first few hours up to a couple days after
a change to the coastline, because the ocean shapefiles used to render
the marine water environment are only updated once a day at most (and
if the coastline is broken it will not update every day).

I responded to the changeset to explain this.

Keeping the river area while also moving the coastline will prevent
this visual bug from occuring.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/13/20, Joseph Eisenberg  wrote:
> It's fine for the area of the river (waterway=riverbank or
> natural=water + water=river) to extend out to that line, but that's
> the extreme limit of the estuary and it's part of the marine
> environment.
>
> The coastline should extend up higher to where the flow of the river
> is consistenly stronger than the tides and wind-driven currents.
>
> Was the mapper in changeset 79201390 deleting the river water area at
> the same time? I think a good compromise would be to keep that area
> too, which would allay the nationist concerns of local mappers that
> their "world's widest river"(c) not be demoted.
>
> I hope the political reasons for these claims are not so strong for a
> reasonable solution to be discussed.
>
> I've been meaning to make a proposal about estuaries in general. -It
> would be nice to have a more consistent way to map them, both as
> outside of the coastline but with a water area tagged with estuary=yes
> or similar. I think I mentioned this a few months back but got busy
> with other projects.
>
> - Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 1/13/20, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> it appears that once again mappers are in diasgreement about how to map
>> the Rio de la Plata, here
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-35.154/-56.310
>>
>> This is a disagreement that had already flared up three years ago, and
>> is now coming back.
>>
>> According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization
>> defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line joining
>> Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina", which is what
>> has been the case in OSM until now:
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973 (the coastline across the
>> "mouth" of the "river")
>>
>> and
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3474227 (the "river")
>>
>> This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations
>> especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for
>> inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight the
>> coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a coastal
>> city.
>>
>> One of the involved mappers who aligned the coastline more closely with
>> the coast wrote (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390) "I
>> believe this is inline with guidance
>> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline)".
>>
>> I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it
>> comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
>> but this is still at the proposal stage.
>>
>> Opinions?
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>> --
>> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Joseph Eisenberg]

It's fine for the area of the river (waterway=riverbank or
natural=water + water=river) to extend out to that line, but that's
the extreme limit of the estuary and it's part of the marine
environment.

The coastline should extend up higher to where the flow of the river
is consistenly stronger than the tides and wind-driven currents.

Was the mapper in changeset 79201390 deleting the river water area at
the same time? I think a good compromise would be to keep that area
too, which would allay the nationist concerns of local mappers that
their "world's widest river"(c) not be demoted.

I hope the political reasons for these claims are not so strong for a
reasonable solution to be discussed.

I've been meaning to make a proposal about estuaries in general. -It
would be nice to have a more consistent way to map them, both as
outside of the coastline but with a water area tagged with estuary=yes
or similar. I think I mentioned this a few months back but got busy
with other projects.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On 1/13/20, Frederik Ramm  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> it appears that once again mappers are in diasgreement about how to map
> the Rio de la Plata, here
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-35.154/-56.310
>
> This is a disagreement that had already flared up three years ago, and
> is now coming back.
>
> According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization
> defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line joining
> Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina", which is what
> has been the case in OSM until now:
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973 (the coastline across the
> "mouth" of the "river")
>
> and
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3474227 (the "river")
>
> This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations
> especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for
> inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight the
> coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a coastal city.
>
> One of the involved mappers who aligned the coastline more closely with
> the coast wrote (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390) "I
> believe this is inline with guidance
> (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline)".
>
> I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it
> comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
> but this is still at the proposal stage.
>
> Opinions?
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

it appears that once again mappers are in diasgreement about how to map
the Rio de la Plata, here

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=8/-35.154/-56.310

This is a disagreement that had already flared up three years ago, and
is now coming back.

According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization
defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line joining
Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina", which is what
has been the case in OSM until now:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/186710973 (the coastline across the
"mouth" of the "river")

and

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3474227 (the "river")

This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations
especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for
inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight the
coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a coastal city.

One of the involved mappers who aligned the coastline more closely with
the coast wrote (https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/79201390) "I
believe this is inline with guidance
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=coastline)".

I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it
comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River_transit_placement
but this is still at the proposal stage.

Opinions?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging