The preferred way to tag is the way the mapping community actually tags. Since that proposal was made, only 8% of waterways are so tagged. In fact more waterway=riverbank tags have been added since then that the total of natural=water+water=river/canal tags.

OK, so if you want to put this data in, then please do not use the "seamark:" namespace. This will then make it clear to DWG that these are not OpenSeaMap tags. Perhaps a tag like "min_depth=xxm"?

OSM do not want depth data in the DB, so you should delete these. There are two water depth projects underwsy that are building separate depth DBs. they are: http://www.teamsurv.eu/ & http://depth.openseamap.org/

"seamark:notice:depth_min" is not a valid seamark tag. What exactly are these objects? If you could describe them to me, I will be able to help you with the correct tags.

The objects “light_minor” and “light_major” are simply lights without any details of the supporting structure. If you wish to specify the supporting structure, then you should use a seamark:type such as “beacon_special_purpose”, etc. Then you may specify its colour, shape, etc. Also, to specify a colour_pattern, there should be at least two colours.

This polygon is not closed - needs completing!

This should be a "seamark:type=fairway", not a separation boundary.

Within the S57 object catalogue there is no such object as a "groyne_marker". The type "beacon_special_purpose" is a carch-all for any kind of marker. This tagging is the only way to make these objects visible in nautical charts. If this is not important to you, an alternative would be to replace all the seamark tags with "man_made=groyne_marker" or similar.

Point taken. In future I will do these type of edits in small geographical areas

Please do not put depth data into the OSM DB. Instead see: http://depth.openseamap.org/

What is the object "Enkeliberget"? A topmark cannot exist in isolation as it has to be mounted on top of another object, usually a beacon.

No depth data, either spot soundings on on nodes, nor depth contours on ways should be put into the OSM database. If you want to contribute depth data, then see: http://depth.openseamap.org/ for details of the OpenSeaMap crowd-sourcing depth project.

Yes it will appear on marine maps! This is an inappropriate use of the "landuse" tagging, which is explicitly for features on land. Also it is "tagging for the renderer" - mis-using tags in order to produce an effect on the streetmap.

Please revert these and instead make a proposal for a "wateruse" or similar tag that will accurately describe these features.

Fixed. There was already a seamark node there that I simply merged with this object.

Are you aware that you are deleting good data? If you did not intend to do this, please revert this.

Sorry, I mis-read. The important thing is that an area which is tagged with "natural=coastline" cannot be tagged as "seamark:type=rock" as the definition of the latter is an object which is "awash or is below the water surface". An area within a coastline is by definition above the high tide level.

That wiki page is discussing values for the "place" key. Therefore, you would use "place=rock", not "seamark:type=rock"

The tag "seamark:type=rock" is inappropriate for islets. Ir should only be placed on nodes that are offshore. See: seamark:type=rock

The object at node #2705530745 is not missing! I drove past it this morning.

Category=8? How did this happen? Is is related to the preset ticket?