Re: [talk-au] sydney edit natural=bay
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote: > I see the author's point, that if you go up and down the coast, it is hard > to put a hard and fast rule on what is considered a bay, and what isn't. > > I also see your point, though, that most people wouldn't consider Port > Jackson and Pittwater as bays, and I don't think we do anybody any favours > by going for technical consistency at the expense of what is commonly > understood. > > Is this distinction really significant in any way? Does anything really > distinguish between water and bays? It isn't easy to classify them, but I do think that it would be beneficial to have most if not all of these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_of_water represented somehow. Even if that is natural=water, water=foobar I don't think it is far to compare it to "water" as that isn't really a classification as per the wikipedia list. But also some can be inferred. Eg. if the water is bordered by a beach and it curves round it is probably a bay. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sydney edit natural=bay
Mick wrote: The entire Sydney Harbour Foreshore and it tributaries have been so molested by man in the last 220 year that "natural" is completely inappropriate In terms of OSM the natural tag is clearly appropriate here. Whether that be natural=bay, natural=water, etc. We're mapping the water, essentially. Where seawalls, etc, exist, they can be mapped as non-natural features. Andrew wrote: In changeset 10648275 some major water areas were changed to natural=bay. What does everyone else think about this? Personally I would support changing Broken Bay as it is a "bay", (but in this case it certainly doesn't look like one But I wouldn't classify Pittwater or Sydney Harbour as bays I see the author's point, that if you go up and down the coast, it is hard to put a hard and fast rule on what is considered a bay, and what isn't. I also see your point, though, that most people wouldn't consider Port Jackson and Pittwater as bays, and I don't think we do anybody any favours by going for technical consistency at the expense of what is commonly understood. Is this distinction really significant in any way? Does anything really distinguish between water and bays? Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sydney edit natural=bay
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 6:55 PM, mick wrote: > The entire Sydney Harbour Foreshore and it tributaries have been so molested > by man in the last 220 year that "natural" is completely inappropriate, if > you need redundant tags use "man_made" I agree, but there is still one thing left that is natural... the water. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] sydney edit natural=bay
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:29:07 +1100 Andrew Harvey wrote: > In changeset 10648275 some major water areas were changed to natural=bay. > > What does everyone else think about this? > > Personally I would support changing Broken Bay as it is a "bay", (but > in this case it certainly doesn't look like one > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/1256210)...? > But I wouldn't classify Pittwater or Sydney Harbor as bays... > The entire Sydney Harbour Foreshore and it tributaries have been so molested by man in the last 220 year that "natural" is completely inappropriate, if you need redundant tags use "man_made" mick ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
