<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/9/21 4:38 pm, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP4zaXpGUm6_sHXHkgoRwzYsD0gPWyDfwcHeNohjOnj2_x_vkg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at
13:48, Andrew Harvey <<a
href="mailto:andrew.harvey4@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">andrew.harvey4@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">It's a tricky one, and I would say there is
no perfect solution here. Going by the one feature, one
OSM element guide <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/One_feature,_one_OSM_element</a>
you can rightly consider a single natural=beach for the
whole length, but simultaneously a different named beach
for each named section.</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yep, that's one issue with it.</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>What I did for Bate Bate, in Cronulla, NSW was to
split into sections and have a natural=beach for each
section, eg <a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-34.0444/151.1637"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=16/-34.0444/151.1637</a>.
They are drawn as different ways but shared/snapped
nodes where they meet.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Which is what I was thinking, with the other option being
delete the name from the full beach & just add named
beach nodes to each separate area.</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>There are other possible solutions with multipolygons
or relations, </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Scary stuff! :-)</div>
<div> <br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>but I think overall just doing each section as a new
way with natural=beach and it's own name is best. <br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That may be the neatest way - just delete the whole thing
& re-do it all.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Leave the coast line alone - that is where Oz lies.. :) And you
might, with luck, find the other boundaries there too.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The 'beach' does not stop at the hi tide mark but extends out to
sea... So I'd remove the beach connection to the hi tide coastline
way and map them for some distance out to sea .. not far but
enough to give the correct impression that sand extends outwards.
<br>
</p>
<p>That may help with leaving the boundary alone but add ing the
individual beaches... <br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>