<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/3/23 14:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAD5VjstJsiW810x-iXGCBOaQGxzOHM895rB-gPp20qA-5fuq6A@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, 29 Mar 2023 at
14:05, OSM via Talk-au <<a
href="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">talk-au@openstreetmap.org</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>
<p>Since the coastline tag is also supposed to represent
the high water mark then I would say that they should be
snapped together (since they then represent the same
feature - that is, the high water mark). This would mean
that the boundary data already in OSM from the
government basemaps would just be their own mapping of
the high water mark, and probably be less up to date or
refined as our own.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Exactly. So if anything we should be actively snapping
them.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Are there any links to these boundaries linked to the high water
mark??? <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I would have though that CAPAD data would be accurate as it
should come from the National Parks people using the gazette.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>My trove searches only turned up low water mark stuff - but I
only looked in NSW. <br>
</p>
</body>
</html>