Hi, it is mostly so that an area eg natural=bare_rock does not end at the shoreline but extends some way under the water. Current practice of having it end exactly on the shoreline is both incorrect and a technical complication for mappers.
In many cases some of the underwater racks would be easy to map. Similar could apply to many other natural objects: ridges, cliffs and (sand) beaches usualy extend some way below water. In fact mapping cliffs across rivers is the commonly used solution in waterfall mapping. So it would appear straightforward to map such natural features across shore lines both under and above water. How do people think about it? Should we generalise that approach or seek another solutions? What would happen with various renderers and other apps? Should we use underwater/awash tag or prefix? Richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
