Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-25 Thread Andy Townsend
Hi, Recently, Chesapeake Bay (the largest estuary in the United States with a surface area of over 10,000 sqkm) has been changed from "natural=coastline" tagging to form a large "natural=water;water=lagoon" multipolygon instead. The area has also been split into the bay itself, the Pocomore

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-25 Thread Ture Pålsson via Tagging
By the way, an... amusing test case for all things related to water and label placement is Lake Mälaren, the lake that Stockholm is separating from the sea, and all its (named!) nooks and crannies: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1433877 . I've had at least 3 different bits of it poking

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-25 Thread Paul Allen
On Wed, 25 Nov 2020 at 08:45, Ture Pålsson via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > > (And I agree with Kevin about reconstructing an area from a point + > surrounding coastline. I'd like to see at least an outline of an > algorithm for that! Having said that, I also recognise that >

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-25 Thread Ture Pålsson via Tagging
I mentioned the problem of mapping "fuzzy" areas to a friend, who replied along the lines of "why, of course such areas should be mapped as functions, taking a point as input and returning a real between 0 (definitely outside) and 1 (definitely inside)!". I'd rather not have to implement

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-24 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 9:23 AM Christoph Hormann wrote: > The problem we have here is that of a widening gap between the goals and > aspirations of the mapper community - which naturally grow as OSM grows in > ambitions - and the abilities and engagement in the non-mapping part of the >

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-24 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
> there were some attempts to suggest universally mapping bays with polygons > rather than nodes previously: > > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2014-October/thread.html#19775 > > which however never reached consensus because of the weighty arguments > against this idea and

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-24 Thread Christoph Hormann
There seems to be quite a lot of anger and animosity in here - paired and in parts probably caused by a very selective and in parts flat out wrong perception of history so i will try to sketch quickly how the development of mapping of names of parts of waterbodies (that is mostly bays and

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-23 Thread Kevin Kenny
On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 2:57 PM Frederik Ramm wrote: > Now, you might smirk and say "let's fix the tools then", but until the > tools are fixed - which might take years -, you've made life a hell of a > lot harder for anyone editing or quality monitoring in the whole area. > > And all for what -

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-23 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, I would like to make one point that has been touched on but not said clearly, I think. Some proponents of the recent changes to Chesapeake bay have used reasoning like: "Only by mapping the bay as a polygon can $SOFTWARE properly determine that a given location is in the bay, as opposed to

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-23 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
I've spent a significant amount of time painstakingly re-mapping the crudely-drawn PGS coastal boundaries of Rhode Island to conform to the wiki definition of natural=coastline, having it traverse all the little bays, coves, inlets, etc. I've also been adding named bodies of water as polygons

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-23 Thread Frederik Ramm
Hi, On 23.11.20 15:10, David Groom wrote: > Using this logic the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea, and the Persian > Gulf should all have the coastline tags removed from their defining ways > and converted to water areas!   Italy, Greece, Libya, Egypt and a large > group of other counties would

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-23 Thread David Groom
See comments below: David -- Original Message -- From: "Eric H. Christensen via Tagging" To: "tagging@openstreetmap.org" Cc: "Eric H. Christensen" Sent: 18/11/2020 20:19:51 Subject: [Tagging] coastline v. water After a few days of much work, a recent

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-22 Thread Sarah Hoffmann
Hi, On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 07:09:45PM +, Eric H. Christensen via Tagging wrote: > You cannot point to other area that may, in fact, be improperly mapped as an > example when they are like that because locals have been shouted down for > doing it correctly. The fact that this keeps coming

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-21 Thread Eric H. Christensen via Tagging
You cannot point to other area that may, in fact, be improperly mapped as an example when they are like that because locals have been shouted down for doing it correctly. The fact that this keeps coming back up literally means that there is not universal agreement that "marginal seas", whatever

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-21 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Eric, I don't think the previous discussion is quite as inconclusive as your evaluation. While it is true that there is not widespread agreement on where the natural=coatline ways should transect a river mouth or river estuary, there is nearly universal agreement that marginal seas, including

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-19 Thread Eric H. Christensen via Tagging
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, November 18th, 2020 at 11:34 PM, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote: > This was fascinating reading.  I do agree that we ought to have a definition > for what gets tagged natural=coastline, and I think it's fine if that > definition has some

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-19 Thread Eric H. Christensen via Tagging
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, November 18th, 2020 at 5:04 PM, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > Eric H. Christensen via Tagging tagging@openstreetmap.org hat am 18.11.2020 > > 21:19 geschrieben: > > > [...] > > First: the matter has been discussed at length previously so i would

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-18 Thread Brian M. Sperlongano
This was fascinating reading. I do agree that we ought to have a definition for what gets tagged natural=coastline, and I think it's fine if that definition has some subjectivity. I would offer something as simple as: "The coastline should follow the mean high tide line. In some cases this

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-18 Thread Christoph Hormann
> Eric H. Christensen via Tagging hat am 18.11.2020 > 21:19 geschrieben: > > [...] First: the matter has been discussed at length previously so i would advise anyone who wants to form an opinion on the matter to read up on past discussion where essentially everything relevant has been said

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-18 Thread Colin Smale
On 2020-11-18 21:31, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Consider that the natural=coastline is defined as representing the mean high > water springs line, that is, the line of the highest tides. Sorry to pick nits, but tides can be higher than MHWS; the "mean" implies a long-term average, which will

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-18 Thread Eric H. Christensen via Tagging
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, November 18th, 2020 at 3:31 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > Consider that the natural=coastline is defined as representing the mean high > water springs line, that is, the line of the highest tides. If the line on an > open ocean beach is at the

Re: [Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-18 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
Chesapeake Bay, as the name “Bay” suggests, is a bay at the edge of the Atlantic Ocean. It is a shallow estuary, similar to many othe partially enclosed margins seas, e.g. the Salish Sea (including Puget Sound) in Washington/British Columbia, San Francisco Bay in California, the Tampa Bay in

[Tagging] coastline v. water

2020-11-18 Thread Eric H. Christensen via Tagging
After a few days of much work, a recent collaborative project to turn the Chesapeake Bay from a nothing space outlined by natural=coastline to what we considered to be a more accurate relation of natural=water, we've received some negative feedback. The difference of opinion seems to lie in