<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif'>
<p>David, do you consider that it would be advantageous to have consensus on this matter, and a consistent tagging paradigm in OSM? I am not prejudging what that consensus position might be, just sounding out if there is any point in having the discussion in the first place.</p>
<div> </div>
<p><br /></p>
<p>On 2018-08-28 13:09, David Groom wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<div>
<div>There is no consensus.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Personally I'm not in favour of the view that any body of water which is tidal should be bounded by a way tagged as coastline. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Reasons for this</div>
<div> </div>
<div>1) Ask any one who lives in say central London "do you live on the coast" or do you live beside a river", most would I'm sure say beside a river, so surely our data should reflect that. I think this probably is what you mean by "seems more natural"</div>
<div> </div>
<div>2) In part because the converse is not true, we bound large non tidal water areas as coastline</div>
<div> </div>
<div>3) If knowledge that a body of water is tidal is important it can be tagged "tidal = yes"</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>David</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>------ Original Message ------</div>
<div>From: "Colin Smale" <<a href="mailto:colin.smale@xs4all.nl">colin.smale@xs4all.nl</a>></div>
<div>To: "Talk-GB" <<a href="mailto:talk-gb@openstreetmap.org">talk-gb@openstreetmap.org</a>></div>
<div>Sent: 28/08/2018 08:49:01</div>
<div>Subject: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers</div>
<div> </div>
<div id="x7977de81f4e34da" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;">
<p>That old chestnut again...</p>
<p>There seems to be an open discussion about how far up a river the natural=coastline should go. The wiki suggests the coastline should be the high water line going up to the tidal limit (often a lock or a wier) but this can be a substantial distance inland. This is AIUI the general scientific approach.</p>
<p>There has been some discussion in the past about letting the coastline cut across the river at some convenient point, possibly because it "looks better" or "seems more natural" or "is less work."</p>
<p>I looked at a few rivers along the south coast to see how they had been tagged and it seems most have the coastline up to the tidal limit. However the coastline around the mouth of the Dart has recently been modified to cut across the mouth, and Salcombe Harbour is also mapped this way.</p>
<p>Is there a consensus for a particular definition of "coastline" in tidal estuaries? Should we try to keep a consistent paradigm, or doesn't it matter?</p>
<p><br /></p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="x7977de81f4e34da" style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;"> </div>
<!-- html ignored --><br />
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace">_______________________________________________<br /> Talk-GB mailing list<br /> <a href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a><br /> <a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a></div>
</blockquote>
</body></html>