On 9 January 2013 09:53, James Livingston <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8 January 2013 20:32, Brett Russell <[email protected]> wrote: >> Assuming that I am reading OSM instructions correct the beach is suppose to >> only extend to the high water mark so the coastline and beach should have a >> one to one relationship on the water side. But then I have been wrong >> before with OSM. > > I think there is what the wiki says, what the wiki says elsewhere, > what is actually done, and what is a good idea :) > > > The coastline page certainly does say that it should extend to the > high water mark, and the early coastlines based on PGS data probably > had that. Since people started tracing from imagery, I imagine a lot > of traced coastline is actually "wherever the water was in the > imagery" rather than the high water mark. > > If in future we want to map both the low and high water marks, the > obvious thing to do would be to use coastline for the low water mark, > water=tidal[0] for the middle area, and beach/whatever for everything > that's dry. > > > I gave up debating these kind of changes long ago, since people are > never going to agree, regardless of the proposal :-\ > > [0] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:water%3Dtidal
Erm, I mean http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_cover _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
