Re: [talk-au] mapping marsh at the edge of a bay
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:19 PM, 4x4falcon wrote: > Hi, > > What's there is trees so can not be saltmarsh, > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbaceous_plant > > Definitely not swamp, as it's not continuously waterlogged, as in tea tree > swamps. > > Mangroves are not restricted to tropical coastlines. > > http://www.ssec.org.au/our_environment/our_bioregion/towra/activities/venturers_report.htm > > Plus it's been a while since I was there but I remember mangroves around > that area. > > Also comparing them with here: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2&lat=-21.13349&lon=149.19342&zoom=18 > > and I know these are definitely mangroves. They look very similar/same to > me. > > Cheers > Ross Thank you. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] mapping marsh at the edge of a bay
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:46 PM, wrote: I usually map these as in the second example, ie coastline along the water to marsh/mangrove boundary then separate area for the marsh/mangroves. I'd also suggest that the treed area should be natural=wetland wetland=mangrove rather than natural=marsh. Sounds good. Out of interest, how do you know it is mangrove and not any of these? * wetland=swamp - An area of waterlogged forest, with dense vegetation. * wetland=saltmarsh - Coastal marshes, exposed to tidal inundation with sea water, therefore characterised by herbaceous plants with special adaptations to saline environments. * wetland=mangrove - Mangroves, tidal forests of salt-tolerant mangrove trees, forming along tropical coastlines. Thank you. Hi, What's there is trees so can not be saltmarsh, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbaceous_plant Definitely not swamp, as it's not continuously waterlogged, as in tea tree swamps. Mangroves are not restricted to tropical coastlines. http://www.ssec.org.au/our_environment/our_bioregion/towra/activities/venturers_report.htm Plus it's been a while since I was there but I remember mangroves around that area. Also comparing them with here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2&lat=-21.13349&lon=149.19342&zoom=18 and I know these are definitely mangroves. They look very similar/same to me. Cheers Ross ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] mapping marsh at the edge of a bay
On 23 December 2010 19:01, Andrew Harvey wrote: > I'm thinking that if we reserve coastline for ways that are on the > coast ie. ocean on one side, land on the other. (I know this is > objective, but...), then at least for this case, there is no coastline > to worry about. Only the bay edge. This is what I've tended to do, which is in line with the int'l laws on coastline as well, in Australia we don't have to worry about split ownership of bays, so the coastline could skirt the bay mouth and then you mark marsh/waterway as needed inside the bay. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] mapping marsh at the edge of a bay
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
> Interesting question - to be honest I'm finding it a bit hard to
> understand your exact situation ("moved the edge of the water...in
> towards the centre of the bay"?) But I don't know for sure what the
> coastline should represent, so I'd be interested to hear opinions on
> this too.
I'm thinking that if we reserve coastline for ways that are on the
coast ie. ocean on one side, land on the other. (I know this is
objective, but...), then at least for this case, there is no coastline
to worry about. Only the bay edge.
Yeh, the edge of the water polygon could be at the land boundary
(between A and B on my diagram), or between B and C.
>
> I think a similar example is here:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2&lat=-38.298693&lon=145.199326&zoom=18
>
> Steve
>
Your example is probably the same if that land between the water and
the admin boundary is some kind of wetland.
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 2:46 PM, wrote:
> I usually map these as in the second example, ie coastline along the water
> to marsh/mangrove boundary then separate area for the marsh/mangroves.
>
> I'd also suggest that the treed area should be natural=wetland
> wetland=mangrove rather than natural=marsh.
Sounds good.
Out of interest, how do you know it is mangrove and not any of these?
* wetland=swamp - An area of waterlogged forest, with dense vegetation.
* wetland=saltmarsh - Coastal marshes, exposed to tidal inundation
with sea water, therefore characterised by herbaceous plants with
special adaptations to saline environments.
* wetland=mangrove - Mangroves, tidal forests of salt-tolerant
mangrove trees, forming along tropical coastlines.
Thank you.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] mapping marsh at the edge of a bay
>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.03275&lon=151.13694&zoom=17&layers=M
>>
>> Along the edge of the bay/water there is
>>
>> land--> | <--trees in water--> | <-- water
>> A B C
>>
>> In the changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6723657
>> I moved the edge of the water (which did cover both B and C) in
>> towards the center of the bay, and made section B marsh. But I'm not
>> sure if that was the right thing to do. Maybe it would be better if
>> the natural=bay/water area included both B and C, and the boundary for
>> B just laid on top of the B/C area. But since we use a proper
>> mulitpolygon for doughnut geometries, just dumping B on top wouldn't
>> look so nice
>>
>> What if B was tagged as marsh, C as water, and then add B and C to a
>> multipolygon tagged as the bay? Or is how its mapped currently how it
>> should be? Any thoughts?
>
> Interesting question - to be honest I'm finding it a bit hard to
> understand your exact situation ("moved the edge of the water...in
> towards the centre of the bay"?) But I don't know for sure what the
> coastline should represent, so I'd be interested to hear opinions on
> this too.
>
> I think a similar example is here:
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2&lat=-38.298693&lon=145.199326&zoom=18
>
> Steve
I usually map these as in the second example, ie coastline along the water
to marsh/mangrove boundary then separate area for the marsh/mangroves.
I'd also suggest that the treed area should be natural=wetland
wetland=mangrove rather than natural=marsh.
Cheers
Ross
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] mapping marsh at the edge of a bay
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Andrew Harvey
wrote:
> For example,
>
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.03275&lon=151.13694&zoom=17&layers=M
>
> Along the edge of the bay/water there is
>
> land--> | <--trees in water--> | <-- water
> A B C
>
> In the changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6723657
> I moved the edge of the water (which did cover both B and C) in
> towards the center of the bay, and made section B marsh. But I'm not
> sure if that was the right thing to do. Maybe it would be better if
> the natural=bay/water area included both B and C, and the boundary for
> B just laid on top of the B/C area. But since we use a proper
> mulitpolygon for doughnut geometries, just dumping B on top wouldn't
> look so nice
>
> What if B was tagged as marsh, C as water, and then add B and C to a
> multipolygon tagged as the bay? Or is how its mapped currently how it
> should be? Any thoughts?
Interesting question - to be honest I'm finding it a bit hard to
understand your exact situation ("moved the edge of the water...in
towards the centre of the bay"?) But I don't know for sure what the
coastline should represent, so I'd be interested to hear opinions on
this too.
I think a similar example is here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/edit?editor=potlatch2&lat=-38.298693&lon=145.199326&zoom=18
Steve
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] mapping marsh at the edge of a bay
For example, http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-34.03275&lon=151.13694&zoom=17&layers=M Along the edge of the bay/water there is land--> | <--trees in water--> | <-- water A BC In the changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/6723657 I moved the edge of the water (which did cover both B and C) in towards the center of the bay, and made section B marsh. But I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do. Maybe it would be better if the natural=bay/water area included both B and C, and the boundary for B just laid on top of the B/C area. But since we use a proper mulitpolygon for doughnut geometries, just dumping B on top wouldn't look so nice What if B was tagged as marsh, C as water, and then add B and C to a multipolygon tagged as the bay? Or is how its mapped currently how it should be? Any thoughts? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
