The EU has done some work on water quality in the beaches around Europe
In sweden controls are made through out the year, that data is available: http://badplatsen.smittskyddsinstitutet.se/
- OSM should distinguish beaches between the ones that are suitable for swimming and the ones that are not (due to pollution or other causes). These datasets are a nice start. Pizzaiolo (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
What about beaches on lakes/rivers?
This page says a beach should always be on a coastline... but what about beaches that are on lakes or large rivers? - JasonWoof 07:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm also curious if there is actually a strong view that beaches on inland water bodies should be tagged as something else? Every beach I've mapped (and most that I've ever been to) is next to natural=water, not natural=coastline. Ajashton 16:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- The article seemed to contradict itself. I have now clarified that beaches can be both along the coast and beside lakes, rivers etc. Does anyone object to that? PeterIto 22:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
How should beaches that may be driven on be tagged? For example Daytona Beach in Florida, USA? -stevedorries
How about nude=yes/no/maybe? So that prudes can avoid them, and the rest of us can find them! Many are officially designated for nude bathing, while others are unofficially used by nudists. Tongro 20:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
- We don't need this tag, because we already have min_clothing=* and max_clothing=*. See Proposed features/Clothing --Surly 06:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- That "covers" it alright! Cheers! Tongro 09:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Between high and low water
I note that beaches should currently only be tagged down to high water. How should one tag a beach that is only visible at low water? How about using natural=beach together with tidal=yes? PeterIto 22:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- This seems a good tagging idea, though I note the Mapnik layer currently ignores the tidal tag and so renders the beach in the standard yellow backround with grey dots (see here), which is probably not the desired result. My personal preference would be to render this as the standard blue sea colour, maybe with the addition of the grey dots. Dmgroom 12:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. Nice! You are probably aware of our ITO Map VMD-coastline comparison map. If not then check it out for Bembridge here. The inclusion of the surface=mud and surface=rock tag showing how the harbour empties is neat and I agree should be presented as sea on most maps. I will adjust the above ITO Map view to show it appropriately and your data should be online in ITO Map my late tomorrow.
- The best approach for beaches between high and low water may however be different.... I have been adding detail to the coast by Felixstowe and have been becoming increasingly uncomfortable at the need to split the coastline and to then use a multi-polygon to identify the beach down to the high water mark and then create another for for the section of beach below high and low water. One could of course create areas as simple ways for each 'beach' but then there are three ways on top of each other along the high water mark at it will be tedious to create on any scale. There is also the risk of breaking the coastline. Fyi, I have also noticed over the weekend that the OS 25K:1 paper maps show 'beach' down to low water which again supports this approach. For a holiday maker it is after all of great interest how much beach there is between high and low water.
- This led me to wonder if we simply use a single area and beach tag for the entire beach down to low-water mark and leave it up to the relevant map rendering software to identify which is above and below the high water mark. Even if the software does not render it differently, the map user can notice the high water mark anyway (as in your example).
- --PeterIto 13:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Surely a crucial factor is to distinguish between above and below high tide mark (coastline) - OS maps do this clearly, so should OSM! Thus unless/until rendering copes it is misleading to have the same appearance (and polygon!) for above and below high tide coastline.
- --IanLancs (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
- The beach issue really needs moved on, whatever is done on topics such as wetland. If a map is to be useful it needs to show how big the beach is at high and low water. I have been mapping many beaches - and I map the beach to low water as an area. The coastline line, being mean highwater, shows the map user the high-tide mark, and the likely size of the beach when it is high tide. The problem is the low water mark has to be measured on the ground, or estimated from the sat image. The current coastline path, which is often automatically generated from some old low-res landsat images, generally needs to be realigned to the highwater mark - again easily visible on a sandy beach from the wet sand, but otherwise sometimes tricky. How do we make a proposal to change the mapping of beaches so that they can be taken down to low water? Or do we want to enter into the multi-poligon process?
- --Jamesks (talk) 13:55, 16 Sept 2013 (UTC)
I've edited the page to make it clear that the beach is the sandy/rocky bit on the land side of the coast line. I've also added a suggestion that the area in the tidal zone could be mapped as a shoal. I haven't been able to find any particular guidance on this but looking through all of the currently used tags this one seem to be the closest fit.
What about all the beach equipment?
This article has a clear lack of information about all the equipment we can find in beaches, such as showers, rescue posts, catwalks, beach libraries... Does anybody know how to do so? --Schumi4ever 13:59, 24 October 2012 (BST)