Well roared lion! If you think you can fix it a better way, than simply do it!!

May be, but a relation as coastline is more wrong. I did only fix that and took tagging out of history. If you have local knowledge, then you are free to fix it!

Direction of coastline is always land on left hand side!

Erstere Frage kann eigentlich nur jemand von der lokalen Verwaltung beantworten.Ggf. ist der dazugehörige "B-Plan" öffentlich und kann eingesehen werden.

Zweite Frage... keine Ahnung...

Please do NOT define new coastlines over existing ones!
I will now delete ALL of them!

Please have a look to the change of benoitdd...

Hi Colin, maybe you didn't look close enough to what I changed... I only changed the direction of an already defined coastline which was wrong...

This island is not visible on any aerial image. Please proof its existance!

This island is not visible on any aerial image. Please proof its existance! Which "map" did you use? Did you check the copyright?

I've just looked more closely to the aerial image and it could be that the area between the island is intermittend water. If that is the case then the island are _not_ connected... But that can not be decided due to the aerial images, only a local can know this...

Hi SnailMiner. OK, sorry for beeing harsh... The area is still not rendered correctly (because of the rendering delay), but I think it will at least beeing rendered with the not mapped gap in a few days. I would suggest to wait until this happens. After that I would offer my help to "fix" the gap... The correct mapping would have been how I did it. The coastline should enclose the whole land area, while the separate islands then would go into two separate multipolygone relations.

Overlapping coastlines are WRONG! Please fix! I will NOT fix it again! The render will also NOT render this correctly... It was correct until you "fixed" it. Remember that coastline edits take _days_ to go through the renderer...
Most likely some other coastline reviewer will fix this in a few days... if you don't...

Hallo Jochen, bitte "natural=coastline" auf die Linien platzieren und nicht in die Relation.

You are creating bad coastlines over and over again! I meanwhile count that as VANDALISM! STOP THAT! Otherwise I will be forced to send a message to the OSM foundation.

You (again) created overlapping coastlines... And WHY did you delete the island relation for Idö? And WHY did you again placed a "place=island" on the line for "Brunnskär" (it is already in the relation!)? And WHY "area=yes"??? It's useless! Please LEARN! Or stop editing...

Please learn more about coastlines before editing them. They may not overlap or cross each other. The relation handling is also bad. Please fix!

Hi Garmin-User! I was also just investigating this relation... I think, that the place=island and the name=* is also wrong and should be removed. What do you think?
Greetings from Germany,
Andre

Hi Elliot, you have to know that the definition for OSM coastline is to tag it at the high tide line (see natural=coastline). That means this area is _not_ land. The way it is tagged now is perfectly ok. No need to change it.
Greetings from Germany
Andre

Your changes in this area are very close to vandalism...

Please do not apply place=islet to unclosed ways. The tag is in the relation.