[Talk-GB] Fw: Fowey estuary coastline problem

Jason Woollacott woollac at hotmail.com
Wed Jan 30 15:19:09 GMT 2013


Thanks Colin,

Thought there may be an official answer out there somewhere.

I’ve been working around the coasts of Somerset & Devon,  and splitting the boundaries,  coastline going to the High Water Mark,  and the Admin Boundaries going to the extract, (LWM in most cases)

Jason

From: Colin Smale 
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 3:02 PM
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org 
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Fw: Fowey estuary coastline problem



I found this report from 2000 which addresses exactly this point.

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/tyldesley_reportall.pdf

It still doesn't answer the question "why Dittisham" though. According to one algorithm it should cross the river at the tidal limit, which is in Totnes, far above Dittisham. That would be even sillier. The boundary cuts straight across Torbay from Torquay to Brixham - but this is as defined in a specific law. The City of Bristol's administrative boundaries are even sillier.

In any case, the coastline (which is a matter of geographical fact, although you can argue about whether it's HWM/LWM etc) is not the same as the limit of (governmental) jurisdiction and the Extent of the Realm; if they are not colinear, there should be two lines in OSM, right?

Colin

On 2013-01-30 11:46, Jason Woollacott wrote:

I wish I knew the reasoning behind it...   I can understand the boundary 
being at the low water mark,  but it seems very odd just to draw it across 
at Dittisham.

Jason


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20130130/f433a5bb/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list