[Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

David Groom reviews at pacific-rim.net
Wed Aug 29 09:09:58 UTC 2018



------ Original Message ------
From: "Mike Evans" <mikee at saxicola.co.uk>
To: talk-gb at openstreetmap.org
Cc: "David Groom" <reviews at pacific-rim.net>
Sent: 28/08/2018 19:22:16
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Coastline and tidal rivers

>On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:09:47 +0000
>"David Groom" <reviews at pacific-rim.net> wrote:
>
>>There is no consensus.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Reasons for this
>>
>>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"
>Well if they're in Central London then it is an estuary at that point 
>so they'd be incorrect. Hence the expression "estuary English", and not 
>"river English".
Both the Oxford and Cambridge Dictionaries define as estuary as part of 
a river.

>
>To quote Wikpedia "The district of Teddington a few miles south-west of 
>London's centre marks the boundary between the tidal and non-tidal 
>parts of the Thames".
The Wikipedia quote to which you refer suggests to  me that this should 
be tagged as a river, since the Thames is a river, parts of which are 
tidal and parts of which are not.  But it's still a river.

>
>
>Perhaps "A History of the Foreshore and the Law Relating Thereto", 
>published 1888 would be a useful reference.
>https://archive.org/details/ahistoryforesho00hallgoog
>
>
>>
>>2) In part because the converse is not true, we bound large non tidal
>>water areas as coastline
>Examples?
>
Baltic , Caspian & Black Seas

>
>>
>>3) If knowledge that a body of water is tidal is important it can be
>>tagged "tidal = yes"
>But then the decision has to made as to where to draw the line and tag 
>one side as "tidal = yes" and the other side not tagged but assumed to, 
>in fact, be tidal. This just introduces an extra arbitrary boundary the 
>inner end of which again becomes non-tidal.
>
>The American Submerged Lands Act of 1953 does appear to define the line 
>at which the coastline extends into estuaries etc., but this does not 
>apply to the UK. That act seems to been precipitated as a result of 
>disputes over oil drilling rights.
>
>Mike
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20180829/d7a1d9cc/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list