[talk-au] Why set coast line to nation park or, administrative boundaries?

[Warin]

On 29/3/23 14:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 14:05, OSM via Talk-au 
> <talk-au at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>     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.
>
> Exactly. So if anything we should be actively snapping them.

I believe this is wrong. For example in NSW...

>From 
https://rg-guidelines.nswlrs.com.au/deposited_plans/natural_boundaries/consents_naturalboundaries

"However Crown Lands is not the only owner of land below MHWM. Where 
Crown Lands is not the owner of land adjoining the foreshore, consent 
must be obtained from the appropriate authority. Some of these include:

  * National Parks and Wildlife Service (where tidal waters have been
    included in land resumed for state or national parks)"


>     This is my first time responding on talk-au, lmk if I've messed up
>     any formatting to link to the original question.
>

Welcome!

The content looks fine to me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20230329/f22545af/attachment-0001.htm>