On 2019-07-13 21:33, Tony Shield wrote:
> Hi
>
> Personally think that High Water Mark and Low Water Mark are very relevant to
> people and to OSM.
>
> Yeah - tides are a nuisance and can never be predicted with total accuracy
> and with Global Warming HWM and LWM will change over time. Then there are
> Highest and Lowest Astronomical Tides, and then tides which increase or
> decrease according to weather conditions (pressure and wind) (New Orleans
> tonight is a good example). There are probably a few others which I have
> forgotten....
>
> Knowing the inter-tidal area at Hunstanton is important, as are those in
> Morecambe Bay and the River Dee(North Wales/England) where paths cross the
> area.
>
> How many beaches are there on the Thames? and what is the inter-tidal ground
> like - sand, shingle, mud . . . .And what and where is the access? These
> questions are what OSM is about.
>
> The OS recognises this and on their maps marks the coastline/MHW with a dense
> line, but not on non-tidal waters.
>
> OSM needs the equivalent of MLW - as far as I know its not defined (and I do
> not feel competent to define) - and I think that Borbus is on the good path.
What exactly do you mean by MLW not being defined? Do you mean that
there is not a robust definition of the concept? Or that it is difficult
to establish the exact line of MLW?
Another reason to want MLW in OSM: The "Extent of the Realm" is *for the
most part* defined as MLWS. This is the limit of the jurisdiction of
normal (local) government. Beyond MLWS, the local council no longer has
any say - it's the UK laws of the sea, as applicable to territorial
waters.
I agree that Borbus is doing good things!
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
