Mick wrote: The entire Sydney Harbour Foreshore and it tributaries have been so molested by man in the last 220 year that "natural" is completely inappropriate
In terms of OSM the natural tag is clearly appropriate here. Whether that be natural=bay, natural=water, etc. We're mapping the water, essentially. Where seawalls, etc, exist, they can be mapped as non-natural features. Andrew wrote: In changeset 10648275 some major water areas were changed to natural=bay. What does everyone else think about this? Personally I would support changing Broken Bay as it is a "bay", (but in this case it certainly doesn't look like one But I wouldn't classify Pittwater or Sydney Harbour as bays I see the author's point, that if you go up and down the coast, it is hard to put a hard and fast rule on what is considered a bay, and what isn't. I also see your point, though, that most people wouldn't consider Port Jackson and Pittwater as bays, and I don't think we do anybody any favours by going for technical consistency at the expense of what is commonly understood. Is this distinction really significant in any way? Does anything really distinguish between water and bays? Ian.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
