The cliff is included in the realtion. However in my opinion it should not be.

if you have a better suggestion than man_made=breakwater then I'm open to discussion. You can have artifical islands, so I don't see why you can't have artificial islets

Please don't remove the natural=coastline tag from small islands (eg way 13,785,475)

I believe I have fixed this

Where these tidal channels meet the open sea the way had been tagged as natural=coastline, but the edge of the channel was also tagged as natural = coastline. There there was no longer and unbroken continuous set of ways tagged as coastline, and the natural=coastline tag had to be removed from some ways in order to fix the coastline.

I decided to remove the tag from the way marking the estuaries as these ways were already part of a water multipolygon and it is a duplication to have something render as both a water area and a coastline area.

If you wish to continue discussion on this matter please message me rather than leaving comments on this changeset

Where these tidal channels meet the open sea the way had been tagged as natural=coastline, but the edge of the channel was also tagged as natural = coastline. There there was no longer and unbroken continuos set of ways tagged as coastline, and the natural=coastline tag had to be removed from some ways .

If you look at the history of way/6623885638 you will see that you are incorrect in believing that I used the natural=water tag on this way, or any relation which this way way part of.

If you wish to continue discussion on this matter please message me rather than leaving comments on this changeset

This chageset has a number of ways tagged as coastline. I have removed these tags, and the ways are now untagged

Hi
many of the ways you tagged as area = yes are probably buildings and could be tagged as building = yes

many of the buildings were tagged as "area = yes" they should have been tagged "building = yes".

I have fixed this

Hi
The boundaries were based on imagery, as such it is not alsways possible to be precise in determining where the actual change occurs between forestry area and a different landuse type.

However I had three intentions with this changeset.

The first was to remove the municipal boundaries from the multipolygon for the forest landuse. The forest extends across municipal boundaries, and you can see I have now extended it into Capoocan, before this changeset the forset was shown to stop at the Capoocan / Carigara boundary.

The second intention was to split the foreseted area into at least two multipolygons. Prior to this changeset the multipolygon covered a large area (particularly in a north / south extent), and I felt it was more manageable as two multipolygons.

The third intention was to try and be more precise in the definition of the forest / other landuse boundary.

This was a large edit, with many changes in the changeset. I closed this changeset with the intention of revising some of the ways in the multipolygon at a later date, in particular I expect that the forested area mapped in OSM will "move" south past the Carigara / Ormoc boundary

please feel free to add a fixme if you so wish

It's left there so that someone with greater local knowledge than myself can tag this way appropriately, possibly as part of a waterway = riverbank relation.

The only tag which I would add would be a note that this was was part of the original PGS coastline import. However, since this information can already be obtained from this ways history, I see no point in adding such a tag.

glad to be of help

Alan. I've merged what I can, and deleted those which didn't represent anything. Whilst doing this I've also tidied up some of the imported landuse multiploygons.

A lot of these ways do represent featues such as islands, which Is why I left them. I'll try and merge this into the exisiting data

changeset comment should have read "update coastline from imagery"

You are deleting the tag "natural = coastline" from many ways. Please do not do this.

Thanks, I only noticed the problem with the lastest JOSM recently. To be honest I'm surprised the validator didnt pick it up. Im being mre careful now.

what was your source for way/521544800 as it does not show on any imagery?