No. I disagree with your interpretation of coastline and can only say that it's time to fix this interpretation that you've been propagating for the last ten years. Legally, scientifically, and locally, the Bay is neither ocean nor sea. There are better ways of tagging this and that's what we've done. So, instead of armcharing this from many thousands of km away, how about you let us that actually live here define what's here.

Ahh, I see the relation, now. However, the use of coastline is still bringing in the ocean as that is what coastline is for, IMO.

I'm looking at YAAC which has the side effect of pulling way identifiers from OSM data and displaying them to the user.

Looking at an application that uses OSM data, the SF Bay is identified as North Pacific Ocean because it is improperly mapped using coastline and only, what I suspect, has a node dropped in the middle of the area, saying that it is the Bay. That's the problem with mapping these inland waters like this. Using "coastline" and then dropping a label in the middle is great if you're making a paper map but if you're using software to actually use the data you actually have to identify the what those areas are and the SF Bay is no more the Pacific Ocean than the Chesapeake Bay is the Atlantic.

I'm not changing the definition of anything. I'm defining the "thing" that I am mapping.

Back to the point of the matter, the Chesapeake Bay is an inland waterway and not a sea like an ocean, the Gulf of Mexico, or the Caribbean Sea. It is vastly smaller and surrounded by land.

The Chesapeake Bay is not part of "the sea", it is a defined area of water that is specifically delineated from an ocean. If it is not rendered appropriately, then the renderer should be fixed. Under your definition, because it is tidal, many rivers should be considered seas which isn't correct.

Awesome. I think it's going to be good to come back and look at everything again. Many tributaries had already been "fixed" so I didn't even look at them.

That was quick. I was just going to start looking at that. Yeah, the little bays along the Chesapeake are... complex. Want to take one side and I'll take the other?

Is there a better place to communicate than a changeset in NC? :)

We can. There are lots of areas in there that could be broken up and removed from the coastline markup. I'm assuming that would improve the time fixes would show up and further reduce the time it would take to render coastline.

Yeah, I was there for an event and saw some of these trails signed the way they were mapped (which I did think was odd). Very cool place to go and explore!

So, that was a while ago. IIRC, some of these names were actually signed names of trails in the area. It seemed at the time that if there was no official name that a local name should just be the name. Not sure if that would be the consensus today but it seemed like the thing to do back then.

Ahhh, I missed that. Lets hope that fixes everything. Thanks for finding that.

Right now the relation is tagged as

type=multipolygon
natural=water
tidal=yes

I've been working on other bodies of waters in North Carolina that seem to be rendering properly. Not sure why this is failing so badly. Maybe those will start failing too?

FWIW, osm.wiki/Tag:natural%3Dbay says that the bay should be enclosed by coastline, thus where I ended my edit several weeks ago. Perhaps this page should be updated?

I've now created a relation for the Eastern Bay and tagged it as natural=bay, along with all the other identifiers. I'll just wait to see if this renders appropriately or if I need to change it to "natural=water".

So, should this just be tagged as "natural=water"?

*sigh*
Okay, so originally this area was identified as the Miles River, which was incorrect. I reduced the Miles River to a location that seemed appropriate (based on maritime charts) and then tried to break up the area into the separate bays using relations. That seemed to fail pretty quickly. So, trying to follow what I read as the way to map bays, did this... and fail.

So, with all that in mind, this area is mainly the Eastern Bay with several smaller bays. How should this be mapped?

Yeah, I'm just holding my breath until the coastline is rendered again and I see blue. I've looked at all the data and I think it's all correct. :)

Sigh... This is not working as I had expected. I was trying to split up the four bays here but that seems to have failed. I just removed the individual multipolygons I added last night and just kept the individual nodes for the individual bays.

The original issue I was trying to fix was that the Miles River was consuming the entire area of Eastern Bay (and the other three bays). Maybe I've fixed this now?

Yeah, totally bummed that this happened! Was looking for an alternate route and thought that maybe US340 might be acceptable but the ATC says it's not a very wide road. I guess the upside is that it's not really hiking season.

I saw it used at another campground in NM. It's supposed to show the maximum length of the RV that can stay at that particular campground. Thinking about it more, however, I'm thinking maxlength would work as well.