[talk-au] sydney edit natural=bay

[Ian Sergeant]

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20120212/e40f3917/attachment.html>