Don't know if this helps. or makes it worse!
Had a thought so looked at Gold Coast Council's online city plan, where I
know that a National Park touches the shore:
https://cityplan.goldcoast.qld.gov.au/eplan/property/41NPW429/0/184?_t=property
compared to what we have
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=18/-28.09018/153.45895
Darker green on Council map is NP, bright green is Council Public Open
Space, patch of ocean is Council "ground", which we show as being within
the Admin Boundary of Gold Coast City based on PSMA Admin Boundaries, but
which is also "outside" the Australian "coastline"?
Other spots on the GC show similar, in that there is a discrepancy, & often
an overlap, between Council & State boundaries.
Thanks
Graeme
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 at 18:14, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 29/3/23 14:30, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 14:05, OSM via Talk-au
> 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.
>
>
> Are there any links to these boundaries linked to the high water mark???
>
>
> I would have though that CAPAD data would be accurate as it should come
> from the National Parks people using the gazette.
>
>
> My trove searches only turned up low water mark stuff - but I only looked
> in NSW.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
