On 15/08/19 14:16, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
15 Aug 2019, 03:43 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:
For context: yesterday Mateusz Konieczny edited the description of
natural=beach on the Landuse page and commented that "beach is not
always unvegetated and concrete along shore is not a beach", and then
I used his new description on the natural=beach page.
My edit was triggered by
edit that claimed that beach is well defined by
"Unvegetated strip of land at the edge of water."
And that was paraphrased form the original OSM description of a beach.
Main problem with such definition is that strip of concrete/asphalt
is not a beach.
I thought about dunes when I claimed that "beach is not
always unvegetated" but now I see that dunes are not considered as
part of the beach.
I copied definition from Wikipedia as it seemed far better as it
exclude stuff like
Maybe copying previous definition from natural=beach would be preferable.
Don't know .. hence my question here .. any 'beach' 'experts'?
Re: > "To me it does not have plants growing on it - so unvegetated."
I agree that beaches generally don't have surface plants like grass -
this can be found in wind-formed sand dunes next to some beaches,
which I would map as natural=sand or natural=dune + surface=grass if
However, there are many beaches shaded by coconut palms and other
spreading or leaning trees here in the rainy tropics - the canopy
would extend out over the high tide water line, so the leaves cover a
significant part of the beach (5 or even 10 meters), and most mappers
put the boundary of natural=wood at the end of the canopy. So I don't
know if mentioning "un-vegetated" in the description is necessary.
So it seems that maybe I managed to improve it, but purely by accident.
Overall I am fine also with older definition from natural=beach, page
but I strongly
oppose defining beaches as "Unvegetated strip of land at the edge of
Good point about concrete may not be a 'beach' .. but then what is a
Tagging mailing list