I'm perfectly aware of said convention and have consciously decided against adhering to it in this case, and I will defend my right to do so.

I'm not trying to be difficult. I just think that edge cases like this have not been taken into due consideration in the formation of said convention. This bay is consists of tidally affected salt water, and is by any sensible definition part of the sea. Hence, explicitly mapping it as such, even if it breaks with convention, makes sense to me. If nothing else it highlights that the convention is not sufficient to express realities on the ground, which is what I am wanting to do.

Unless someone can come up with a reason for why challenging this convention is worse than disguising its problems, I'd like to continue to do so.

> Could you please explain what you mean by a "permeable embankment".

This road travels over an embankment. I think we agree on that. I think we also agree that embankments that reach over MHWS must be considered land. Now, what do I mean by permeable? I mean that the embankment isn't impervious to sea water. It consists of coarse material and/or contains piping that allows seawater to flow though it relatively easily. With this comes transmission of salt and tidal effects.