[Tagging] Have our tagging voting rules changed recently?

[Michael Montani]

Dear all,

I'm the author of the proposal of 
natural=bare_soil.
 I didn't expect this modification to the voting process would have (correctly) 
raised this issue. As you can imagine and guessed, the motivation was to convey 
negative consensus to useful information to make the proposal better (not to 
make the opposition votes become agreement ones).

I have been biased by the fact I saw the very same sentence in a past voting 
proposal, even if unfortunately I cannot recall which one right now...

Thank you and sincere apologies,
Michael


Da: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
Inviato: martedì 4 agosto 2020 10:14
A: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
Cc: Mateusz Konieczny ; Tag discussion, strategy and 
related tools 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Have our tagging voting rules changed recently?

To be more clear:
in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Ground=2018441=2018440

I removed
"Any opposition vote without reason or suggestion will not be counted in the 
voting process."
as it is an undiscussed modification of a proposal voting and a refusal to 
follow instructions
on https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting

Opposition votes without reason or suggestion are still valid and will be 
counted.

Though asking such voters for feedback/explanation is OK and it is
preferable to explain your vote.

Aug 4, 2020, 10:10 by tagging@openstreetmap.org:
I partially reverted
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Ground=prev=2014966
and followed
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting

Note that
"People should not just vote "oppose", they should give a reason for their 
proposal, and/or (preferably) suggestions."

is suggested at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process#Voting
and that it is not a new addition, but still pure "no"
vote are valid ones.


Aug 4, 2020, 09:57 by frede...@remote.org:
Hi,

looking at the "bare_soil" proposal I was surprised to read:

"Any opposition vote without reason or suggestion will not be counted in
the voting process."

Is that something that we have added by consensus?

It sounds like a somewhat sneaky measure to ignore opposition votes, or
discourage those who cannot properly express their opposition in English
from voting in the first place. It also raises the question of what
requirements there are for a "reason or suggestion". If I vote no with a
reason "it stinks", will there then be someone who says "ah, this is not
a valid reason" and strips me of my vote? Who will that person be?

Has this been used in other votes in the past? I'm tempted to say it
would invalidate any vote but maybe it *is* indeed based on consensus
and I missed that.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

[Michael Montani]

Dear all,

I eventually found on-the-ground images of the feature I would like to propose 
/ map. As you can see these areas are not sand (different granulometry), nor 
scree (very particular definition in natural=scree wikipage). They are not part 
of road, but are passable by cars. They are not bare rocks.

You can find the images at the proposal page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Ground . I know it's not 
allowed to modify the feature proposal page during voting, so if needed I will 
restart the voting after.

>Maybe it is list of considered but rejected alternatives?

Yes I forgot to modify, now it has been corrected

>It is unfortunate that the suggestion to not aim for introducing an umbrella 
>tag was not taken into account.
The proposal as is lacks clarity of what it actually suggests and how this new 
tag delienates against existing tags.  It also lacks comprehensive practical 
guidance for the mapper how to identify and delineate features with this tag 
based on real world on-the-ground examples.

Hopefully the new images will delineate better the feature I would like to 
propose / map. I don't think it's an umbrella tag, how can I map these areas 
which, again, are not temporary and they are not covered by vegetation after 
few time? In Africa they are a lot, and I think there is not current tag for 
that.

>What you essentially attempt to introduce here is a *residual* tag to turn the 
>open OSM tagging system consisting of tags that positively identify specific 
>real world features into a closed land cover classification system modeled 
>after countless such systems (some of which you cited).

I think ground is a real world feature. The landcover classification systems 
have only been cited to check a clearer, already existing definition in 
literature, as suggested by others in the feature discussion. And also, it 
seems natural=bare_rock has been taken from there too.

Thanks, I hope to receive some more guidance,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>



Da: Christoph Hormann 
Inviato: venerdì 24 luglio 2020 16:45
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

On Friday 24 July 2020, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> I take it that means you're not in favour of my idea of rendering all
> parts of the world not covered by a tagged area with the label "Here
> there be dragons."  I think that would be cool, especially if
> somebody comes up with a good dragon icon.

You can pick one of the following two answers:

1) We already render them in a distinct color:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/style/style.mss

Rendering features with a distinct symbol or pattern in addition if that
symbol does not transport any additional information is something we
typically try to avoid.

2) There are no parts of the Earth that are not covered by a mapped area
since the global coastline divides the Earth surface into land (on the
left of the coastline) and ocean (on the right of the coastline).

;-)

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

[Michael Montani]

After the fruitful discussions we had in [Tagging] Are we mapping ground on 
OSM?<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-July/053793.html> 
and [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - 
(Ground)<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-July/053911.html>
 , I updated the wiki page for the proposal of 
natural=bare_soil<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Ground#Proposal>.

The voting for natural=bare_soil has begun and can be found 
here<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Ground#Voting>. It 
will temptatively close August 7th, given enough support.

Thanks,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Farmlands subject to rotation of crops

[Michael Montani]

Dear all,

I wanted to check with you which is the best way to map farmlands subject to 
rotation of crops. An example could be of a farmland used for general crop in 
one part of the year and left it at rest for the remaining part of the year, 
being actually used as a meadow for animals grazing there.

Which would be the best way to tag such area?

Thanks,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

[Michael Montani]

I think it is a good idea to consider a threshold of vegetation present on the 
ground in order not to confuse the proposed natural=bare_soil with other 
landcover tags as natural=scrub or natural=grassland.

According to the CORINE landcover definitions we mentioned before, sparsely 
vegetated areas are defined as areas with less than 50% vegetation covering. 
Thus, < 30% seems good to me.
As for the FAO classification, I think bare_soil can be classified as any 
compacted bare area with ground (meant as: any area of silt or clay soil, as 
well as loam (mixed soil with clay/silt/sand) and mixed organic (including 
humus) and mineral soil). This tag should be applied whenever the groundy area 
cannot be tagged with already existing tags, mainly due to the environmental or 
geological nature of that area (as, for example, natural=wetland + 
intermittent=yes).

Also, good images in the talk 
page are 
present, with [13] and [15] being my favourites. I also think not all the 
bare_soil areas are deserts or desert pavements, and I don't consider mapping 
ground as mapping the un-mapped.

I would like to raise a last round of consultations, after which I will proceed 
with the voting.

Thanks,
Michael



Da: mbranco2 
Inviato: giovedì 16 luglio 2020 16:06
A: tagging@openstreetmap.org 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

natural=bare_soil  sounds good to me, maybe it should be useful to set a 
maximum vegetation percentage (30% ?)
If not, someone could say "Hey, there are two bushes in that area, it's not 
bare soil"


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

[Michael Montani]

According to the document you 
shared<http://www.fao.org/3/x0596e/X0596e02a.htm#P1974_116516>, bare soil is 
mentioned in:
Primarily non-vegetated > Terrestrial > Bare areas

And within Bare areas, Bare soil is an available category, being distinguished 
by Bare rock whether the terrain is consolidated or not.
Within Bare soil, further classification is made depending on a "stoniness" 
percentage (5 to 40% Stony, >40% Very stony) and on soil macropatterns (II 
level).

I think this could be useful material for us to make a decision. 
natural=bare_soil targeting all the areas of unconsolidated ground material 
could be used whether or not a groundy area hasn't already a tag that suits 
better its representation (e.g. natural=wetland + intermittent=yes, 
landuse=quarry...).

Thanks,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>


Da: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Inviato: mercoledì 15 luglio 2020 10:08
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)



Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>:
If you are interested in reading some interesting thoughts about landcover 
classification, there is the FAO landcover classification system, thought to be 
useful globally:
http://www.fao.org/3/X0596E/X0596e00.htm




there are only 8 main classes:
http://www.fao.org/3/X0596E/X0596e10.gif

and you can easily determine them through a decision matrix:
1. primarily vegetated or primarily non-vegetated?
2. terrestrial or aquatic/flooded regularly?
3. cultivated/man made/artificial or natural?

then they add additional properties like life forms, crops, leaf types, 
climate, ...

>From the combination of these properties and classes, detailed land cover 
>classes are determined:


http://www.fao.org/3/x0596e/X0596e02a.htm#P1974_116516

E.g. here:

TABLE 3.4
Example of the formation of land cover classes

EXAMPLE: "NATURAL AND SEMI-NATURAL TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION" (A12)

Classifiers used

Boolean formula

Standard class name

Code

Life form and cover

A3A10

Closed forest

20005

Height

A3A10B2

High closed forest

20006

Spatial distribution

A3A10B2C1

Continuous closed forest

20007

Leaf type

A3A10B2C1D1

Broad-leaved closed forest

20095

Leaf phenology

A3A10B2C1D1E2

Broad-leaved deciduous forest

20097

2nd layer: LF, C, H

A3A10B2C1D1E2F2F5F7G2

Multi-layered broad-leaved deciduous forest

20628

3rd layer: LF, C, H

A3A10B2C1D1E2F2F5F7G2

Multi-layer broad-leaved deciduous forest with emergents

20630

Cheers,
Martin

PS: And the best: LCCS comes as a run time application, you do not need to have 
virtual basic installed !!11!!!

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

[Michael Montani]

This proposal is interesting. Giving a rapid look on the CORINE classes, it 
seems bare soil is included in all other classes but it hasn't a class per se.

  *   CORINE 
library<https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index.html>
  *   333 Sparsely vegetated 
areas<https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index-clc-333.html>
  *   332 Bare 
rock<https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index-clc-332.html>
  *   331 Beaches, sand and 
dunes<https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index-clc-331.html>
 the most near imo.
  *   Many others, searching for "ground" and "soil" into the 
manual<https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/docs/pdf/CLC2018_Nomenclature_illustrated_guide_20190510.pdf>

It seems to me anyway those classes are looser than OSM's 

Thanks,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>


Da: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
Inviato: martedì 14 luglio 2020 15:29
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Cc: Mateusz Konieczny ; Tag discussion, strategy and 
related tools 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Maybe. I would be interested in specific
proposals.


14 Jul 2020, 14:24 by vosc...@gmail.com:
I am not a land cover expert, but have come across a great number of obviously 
wrong land cover tagging in OSM.
Said this, why not try to use CORINE [1] definitions?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_of_Information_on_the_Environment

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 11:52 Christoph Hormann, 
mailto:o...@imagico.de>> wrote:


> Joseph Eisenberg 
> mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> hat am 13. 
> Juli 2020 um 22:34 geschrieben:
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrishunkeler/32097822997
>

I think this is a great example why more specific tags are advisable to use in 
OSM than a generic bare ground tag.

What this picture shows is commonly known as desert pavement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_pavement

Apart from varying in size distribution and density as well as material of the 
stones these form a fairly characteristic surface that can and should be mapped 
distinctly.  As size of the larger stones strongly affects navigability, 
specifying that would be a valuable supplemental tag.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

[Michael Montani]

Doing some wrap up:

> Barren sounds to me to imply nothing can grow there.Bare sounds more
neutral and factual to me, it just says there is nothing but bare soil to
mark the area with.Please correct if I am wrong!

For the 'barren vs bare' discussion, I would go for natural=bare_soil, not only 
for the meaning but also for a matter of consistency with the already existing 
natural=bare_rock.

>Even those photos show that there is some vegetation there, even though
it's sparse.
At what level of plant growth, does it stop being "bare ground"? One
"plant" (tree / shrub / patch of grass etc) per sq km / 100 / 10 / 1 sq m?
Maybe, instead of saying it's bare ground, we need some way of describing
the level of ground cover eg vegetation=sparse or similar?

To me, I'm ok in considering bare_soil with some vegetation. But obviously not 
too much, otherwise I would switch to natural=scrub. Also, a natural=bare_soil 
+ vegetation=sparse to me would be natural=scrub or natural=grassland. A 
(little) tree/shrub/patch every (approximately) 10 sq m or more seems good to 
me to state it's bare_soil. The photos I posted, have some scrub polygon 
surrounding the groundy area for sure.

Also, I would go for bare_soil targeting silt or clay soil, loam and mixture 
humus and mineral soil. To me, all these areas don't have a current OSM tag 
correctly defining all of them, apart when inserted in an environmental or 
geological context as wetlands.
Indeed, I wouldn't use bare_soil when a wetland can reasonably describe in a 
correct way the area, as well as a thin layer of grass (e.g. lichens in tundra) 
is covering the ground (in that case natural=grassland).
Furthermore to me is not meaningful to specify whether a soil is mostly humus 
as, if the organic matter percentage is high, most probably vegetation will 
grow there in a while. As you may have imagined, this tag proposal was born 
mostly to map arid areas rather than general soil, but soil seems to be a huge 
gap in OSM landcover tagging.

Unfortunately is very hard to retrieve on-the-ground photos in Africa, but I 
think these areas are very common in places outside the European context. Feel 
free to add photos (if you have any) at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground#Examples

Thanks,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>


Da: Joseph Eisenberg 
Inviato: domenica 12 luglio 2020 21:15
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

The link [2] to https://www.hq.nasa.gov/iwgsdi/Barren_Land.html has these 
categories:

1.2.2.2.1 Bare Exposed Rock: Those ecosystems characterized by areas of bedrock 
exposure, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic material, rock 
glaciers, and other accumulations of rock without vegetative cover.

This is mostly covered by natural=bare_rock or natural=scree (or 
natural=shingle) currently.

1.2.2.2.2 Beaches: Those ecosystems along shorelines characterized by smooth 
sloping accumulations of sand and gravel. The surface is stable inland, but the 
shoreward part is subject to erosion by wind and water and to deposition in 
protected areas.

This is natural=beach, or natural=wetland + wetland=tidalflat, or 
natural=shingle, possibly overlapping with water (if below the high tide line 
or high water line).

1.2.2.2.3 Dry Salt Flats: Those ecosystems occurring on the flat-floored 
bottoms of interior desert basins that do not qualify as wetlands.

We don't have a good tag for this, as Christoph mentioned previously, probably 
because these features are rare in Europe.

1.2.2.2.4 Mixed Barren Land: Those regions in which a mixture of barren land 
features occurs and the dominant land use occupies less than two-thirds of the 
area. This includes, for example, a desert region where combinations of salt 
flats, sandy areas, bare rock, surface extraction, and transitional activities 
could occur in close proximity.

We should map these areas based on the most specific area: natural=sand, 
natural=bare_rock, landuse=quarry, etc.

1.2.2.2.5 Sandy Areas Other Than Beaches: Those ecosystems composed primarily 
of dunes -- accumulations of sand transported by wind. ...

This is usually mapped as natural=sand

1.2.2.2.6 Strip Mines, Quaries, and Gravel Pits: Those regions where vegetative 
cover and overburden are removed to expose such deposits as coal, iron ore, 
limestone, and copper. This includes inactive, unreclaimed, and active strip 
mines, quarries, borrow pits, and gravel pits until other cover or use has been 

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

[Michael Montani]

Unfortunately I don't have photos of the terrain at the moment, but I will see 
if I can come back with some on the ground example.

For now, I put some example photos in the Talk page of the feature 
proposal<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground#Examples>
 . Feel free to leave a comment on any photo, e.g. whether or not you would it 
consider as soil. I would be also curious to know what tag would you use to map 
the ground of this kind of areas with the already existent tags.

Thanks,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>

[cid:55088391-3951-4b49-93bf-e38fd2876f34]


Da: Christoph Hormann 
Inviato: venerdì 10 luglio 2020 12:00
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)


Independent of what i already said in

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-July/053795.html

i am always wary of tags lacking any examples for on-the-ground mapping or a 
practically locally verifiable definition.  And defining a tag negatively 
trough the lack of something (vegetation) rather than positively through 
something that can be positively observed is problematic.  We have had this 
problem with natural=desert already (which some had defined equally though the 
absence of vegetation).

Overall as it stands this does not seem likely to become a successful and 
meaningful tag.  Maybe you can show some on-the-ground examples of areas you 
think this tag is suitable and needed for and get input from the wider 
community how they would suggest to characterize and tag such areas.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

[Michael Montani]

I agree it could be considered as humus. The distinction between organic soil 
and humus is ambiguous according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus , but I 
think it is general enough to target mostly organic soil.

Shall we consider to add this specification on the tagging? Or would humus be 
considered as bare soil anyway?

Thanks

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>

[cid:072fe9f2-17da-426c-b4c6-c25f4370d75b]


Da: Peter Elderson 
Inviato: venerdì 10 luglio 2020 12:02
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Organic without any mineral, would you still call that soil?

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 11:55 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>:


sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
> mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>
> Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil?


+1,
I also disagree that “soil can be organic or mineral”. It has typically both, 
organic and mineral components, but organic components are a hard requirement. 
Otherwise it would be sand, or rock, or silt or clay or loam etc. (depending on 
grain size/s).

Cheers Martin



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] R: Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

[Michael Montani]

>Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil?

Using "ground" and defining it as "soil, not all kinds of ground" will not go 
well.

natural=bare_ground for me is clearly including also natural=bare_rock,
while natural=bare_soil would avoid this

This is a good point. The two ways I can see this problem solved:

  *   Change the proposal to natural=bare_soil (bare_soil was one of the 
proposed possible values)
  *   Collapse natural=bare_rock into a more general natural=bare_ground 
(requires cleaning and changing to the new tag...). Too general to me.

If natural=bare_soil receives enough support we can change to that one. Also 
add your thoughts to the discussion page in the wiki in such a way to keep 
track of all the suggestions.

Thanks,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>

[cid:dbeabd22-00aa-4ae1-90af-239b00144290]

Da: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
Inviato: venerdì 10 luglio 2020 11:37
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Cc: Mateusz Konieczny 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil?

Using "ground" and defining it as "soil, not all kinds of ground" will not go 
well.

natural=bare_ground for me is clearly including also natural=bare_rock,
while natural=bare_soil would avoid this


Jul 10, 2020, 11:16 by michael.mont...@un.org:
Dear mappers,

after the discussion we had through the tagging ML "Are we mapping ground on 
OSM?"<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-July/053793.html>, 
it has been open a feature proposal to map ground on OSM.

Tag: natural = bare_ground (but many other options are open to discussion).
Description: "An area covered by soil, without any vegetation"
You can find the proposal wikipage 
here<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Ground>.

I hope this proposal will receive as many contributions possible, thank you






--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>

[cid:a486ba8f-6409-4de5-bb51-0f9f079739d9]

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

[Michael Montani]

Dear mappers,

after the discussion we had through the tagging ML "Are we mapping ground on 
OSM?"<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-July/053793.html>, 
it has been open a feature proposal to map ground on OSM.

Tag: natural = bare_ground (but many other options are open to discussion).
Description: "An area covered by soil, without any vegetation"
You can find the proposal wikipage 
here<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Ground>.

I hope this proposal will receive as many contributions possible, thank you

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>

[cid:a486ba8f-6409-4de5-bb51-0f9f079739d9]
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] R: Are we mapping ground on OSM?

[Michael Montani]

> there is natural=bare_rock for some cases, generally I would go with 
> landcover tags. Knowing the composition of the material would be interesting 
> to understand what to expect when it is wet.

natural=bare_rock<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dbare_rock> 
is about bedrock, not related at all with ground. 
landcover=*<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover> 
would fit for this purpose, but it is a proposal as well and the wikipage has 
been updated since long time. Furthermore I believe landcover=* would be a 
duplication of already existing tags (eg. natural=wood and landcover=trees).

> We have established and usually quite consistently used tags for a number of 
> fairly specific natural or semi-natural non-vegetated surfaces - 
> natural=bare_rock, natural=scree, natural=shingle, natural=sand and 
> natural=mud and more specifically in coastal environments natural=beach, 
> natural=shoal, natural=reef and natural=wetland + wetland=tidalflat.  It 
> would therefore be rather counterproductive to introduce a new umbrella tag 
> engrossing those like natural=bare_ground.

It seems to me that up to now there is a duality of tagging in OSM for 
landcover: basically there are some tags that refer to 'what's on the imagery' 
(eg. natural=sand, natural=rock ...) and others which focus on the geological 
meaning of the feature (natural=shingle, natural=scree ...). By the way it 
seems to me very strange that there is nothing there for a straightforward 
feature as ground: compacted soil with very few or no vegetation, which can be 
of mineral or organic nature. This, as I told you, would be super useful for 
off-road navigation (to know if your car/motorbike/tank will get stuck into the 
mud).

I agree by the way that dried lakes are mostly mapped with natural=wetland + 
intermittent=yes, which makes sense and again refers to the role that natural 
feature is playing in the environment. But a tag on ground will possibly cover 
all the other cases, as I find it's a huge gap in landcover tagging.

>The local, regional, or global Copernicus time series datasets are 
>specifically meant to overcome this. 
>https://land.copernicus.eu/global/products/
"The Water Bodies product detects the areas covered by inland water along the 
year providing the maximum and the minimum extent of the water surface as well 
as the seasonal dynamics. The area of water bodies is identified as an 
Essential Climate Variable (ECV) by the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS)."
The global ones are built of higher resolution datasets with variable 
accessibility. Like the JRC’s Global Surface Water (MWE-GSW) Dataset at  
https://global-surface-water.appspot.com/map ... "...location and temporal 
distribution of water surfaces at the global scale over the past 3.6 decades, 
and provides statistics on their extent and change ..."

Open global coverage dataset can definetely help to map landcover and many ones 
are out there. The discussion is not about seasonality of lakes but generally 
on ground.

To me, a tag proposal natural=ground, ground:type=organic/mineral with the 
further possibility to specify soil type seems reasonable.

Thanks,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>

[cid:aecd50ec-b315-4265-bf62-424fec50adeb]

Da: Michael Patrick 
Inviato: domenica 5 luglio 2020 22:01
A: tagging@openstreetmap.org 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Are we mapping ground on OSM?


> Generally mapping bare ground beyond the specific established tags mentioned 
> earlier is often hard without local knowledge.  Imagery taken during dry 
> season will often read like bare ground while there is often fairly extensive 
> plant growth (like natural=grassland) that dries up and looks 
> indistinguishable from bare ground even on high resolution imagery.

The local, regional, or global Copernicus time series datasets are specifically 
meant to overcome this. https://land.copernicus.eu/global/products/

"The Water Bodies product detects the areas covered by inland water along the 
year providing the maximum and the minimum extent of the water surface as well 
as the seasonal dynamics. The area of water bodies is identified as an 
Essential Climate Variable (ECV) by the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS)."

The global ones are built of higher resolution datasets with variable 
accessibility. Like the JRC’s Global Surface Water (MWE-GSW) Dataset at  
https://global-surface-water.appspot.com/map ... "...location and

[Tagging] Are we mapping ground on OSM?

[Michael Montani]

Dear all,

when mapping landcover and landuse in OSM, it may be possible sometimes to find 
areas in which ground is compacted without any vegetation like in these 
pictures [1]<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Groundy_area1_1_100.png>, 
[2]<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Groundy_area2_1_20.png>, 
[3]<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Groundy_area3_1_20.png>, 
[4]<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Groundy_area4_1_100.png> (scale in 
filename). We have some doubts on how to approach those areas for several 
reasons:

  *   It doesn't seem to us that universally accepted or even proposed tag of 
groundy places exists. By the way it may be useful to know where an area is 
groundy e.g. for off-road navigation. Some illegal 
natural=land<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=land> seems to be 
there, but maybe it could be worth considering to do a tag proposal of
 *   Key: natural or landcover
 *   Values: ground, bare_ground, soil, bare_soil, land
 *   Frankly, a natural=ground seems the most reasonable to me
  *   It doesn't seem reasonable to consider default ground a blank map, 
otherwise many areas of the world would be bare ground, or we should cope with 
the idea that this is necessary otherwise.
  *   We would feel unconfident to use 
natural=scrub<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dscrub> or 
natural=grassland<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dgrassland> 
in those areas...
  *   Some areas as these 
pictures<https://www.google.com/search?q=sterile+ground=isch=2ahUKEwiYrNi_7bDqAhWZNewKHf_QD6UQ2-cCegQIABAA=sterile+ground_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzoCCAA6BAgAEB46BAgAEBM6CAgAEAUQHhATOggIABAIEB4QE1CepQFY9awBYJuyAWgAcAB4AIABcIgB3QSSAQMyLjSYAQCgAQGqAQtnd3Mtd2l6LWltZw=img=6QX_XtiTHpnrsAf_ob-oCg=762=1536=firefox-b-d>
 could be tagged as intermittent wetlands, which makes sense in some particular 
areas with rainy and dry seasons in Africa. But not all the groundy places 
without vegetation are wetlands, like deserts. Actually an abandoned tag 
proposal 
natural=desert<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deserts> 
is there, but I think most of the sandy deserts are mapped with 
natural=sand<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dsand> and 
natural=dune<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Ddune> even 
though other materials are there for deserts.
  *   Another way worth considering could be to use 
surface=*<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:surface> which is 'Originally 
concerned about the surface in relation to transport and sports and more 
commonly used on linear features it is now increasingly used with certain areas 
of type natural<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural>=*' according 
to the wiki. By the way this is an additional tag, so I think it can be dirty 
to use it to map ground.

What are you thoughts? Have you ever needed or thought about how to address 
this issue? Which tags would you use / propose (if needed) to map ground?

Thanks,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 
3297193455 | Intermission: 158 6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org/>



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging