Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 6:22 AM stevea wrote: > I’m not positive that this is true for the entire perimeter, but > bulldozer-cleared areas, hand-dug trenches many meters wide (to prevent a > fire “jumping” from one side of the perimeter to the other) and usage of > cutlines (for power cables / towers) and roadways to establish part of a > perimeter are all strategies I believe firefighters use to “build” such a > fire perimeter. This is much more clearly delineated in the real world than > might be a bit of red tape on a tree. Definitely, and more permanent as well. My brother's place has a line that was bulldozed down to bare rock in a firefighting operation in 1950. There's still a strip of bare rock there, because it takes decades for enough duff and debris to accumulate to rebuild the soil. (Moreover, the slope is steep, so the spring snowmelt tends to flush away what has accumulated.) We still use the fire line to walk to the back of the property. Nature is gradually rebuilding, but the landcover there is still mostly ferns, mosses and lycopodia, although there are a lot more perennial forbs and we're starting to see alders reappear. > I think “burden” for a lightly-tagged polygon is hyperbole (exaggeration), > but I do see the point that a sophisticated user who is curating data in, > around or associated with such a polygon might find an overlay strategy to be > ideal. But doing so leaves out all other OSM users (many, besides the single > user noted above) and all other “useful” reasons for the data being shared in > the database (which might become many, but are now discussed as “at least > two: to better re-map and to warn users “there was a fire here, use care”). > Perhaps we have identified an edge between where “data are better curated > outside of OSM” and “data that seriously benefit by being shared and hence > Inside of OSM.” Who decides? How? I tend to have little patience with claims that features that are visible in the field ought not to be mapped because they will "burden the map". Generally speaking, that means simply that those features are not of interest to the claimant. I welcome correct mapping of any observable feature, even ones that I'm highly unlikely to map or care about. I don't think any of us has the right to dictate that another mapper ought not to be interested in a given feature. On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 8:29 AM Paul Allen wrote: > On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 09:58, stevea wrote: >> I saw someone say “six to seven years” (as what might pass for “recovery” to >> a large degree) to have “taken root” and after living most of my life here, >> that sounds about right. > > It was I who said that. I don't have your personal experience, but in a > "seven degrees of Kevin Bacon" kind of way I have come to know a > group of people on Facebook who avidly hike in the affected areas. When > discussing the fires and their possible aftermath they compare them to past > fires and mention six to seven years for past recoveries. If you consider replacing a stand of mature hemlocks with an alder thicket to be 'recovery'. (Substitute the successional stages of your local ecosystem. Mostly where I hike, it's the mixed-deciduous forest of eastern North America, transistioning to Canadian taiga at the higher elevations, with alpine tundra on a few high peaks.) -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Sep 30, 2020, at 5:27 AM, Paul Allen wrote: > BTW, ordinary polygons won't do for this. You'll need a multipolygon > to exclude the Mount Wilson observatory and some campgrounds that > were saved from the fires burning all around them. :) Perhaps I have not been clear or remain misunderstood: the polygon is not an exact delineation of "this (and exactly this) has all burned." It is the perimeter of the fire, inside of which the fire was "fought" or allowed to burn, outside of which, "not." If there are areas (like Mt. Wilson Observatory and campgrounds) inside of a perimeter that were "saved," the polygon should not explicitly exclude these areas with role "inner" as part of a multipolygon relation — that isn't the semantic of the perimeter. Many areas inside the perimeter DID burn and will need their existing land cover (natural=wood, natural=scrub...) tags removed, some areas (trees, houses which were saved...) did NOT burn. It would not be correct to re-map the fire=perimeter as a multipolygon with not-burned areas with role "inner." As newer imagery becomes available, it is correct to leave not-burned areas alone, adjusting them up to the edge of where they DID burn, and in areas which did burn, removing / adjusting-to-smaller-areas land cover tags as they exist now. This area was almost exclusively heavily wooded in the real world and OSM well maps fairly precisely where these "woods" were. Only now, much of them burned. Where, exactly? "Somewhere inside of" the polygon denoted fire=perimeter. OSM contributors await newer imagery, we will better (re-) map landcover and other data that are inside of the polygon when they become available. At the completion of this process, the usefulness of the polygon diminishes to zero (perhaps there remain closed roads and dangerous areas, these can be mapped "differently," although "no-go" area tagging remains unclear) and the polygon can be removed, having exhausted its usefulness. Some might complain that such an "improve existing map data HERE" polygon overlaps with small projects like a localized import or a Mapping Party to improve a particular city or county, saying a Tasking Manager or similar tool can and should be used to manage this. But while "a particular city or county" have well-defined, largely in-the-map boundaries, an area devastated by major fire has no such boundary. Unless and until a polygon tagged fire=perimeter is entered, to describe an "area of interest for improvement of existing map data" (rather than "this is all burned"). A Tasking Manager could be used for this, but it needs such a polygon to identify the area of interest. SteveA ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 18:58, stevea wrote: > This is useful because it shows not only where OSM mappers (like me) will > need to update landcover > At least after the Australian fires, we still left natural=wood areas which burned tagged that way, and in my view this is correct since they are still are wooded areas even after the fire even with crown fires and with many trees not surviving. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 09:58, stevea wrote: I saw someone say “six to seven years” (as what might pass for “recovery” > to a large degree) to have “taken root” and after living most of my life > here, that sounds about right. It was I who said that. I don't have your personal experience, but in a "seven degrees of Kevin Bacon" kind of way I have come to know a group of people on Facebook who avidly hike in the affected areas. When discussing the fires and their possible aftermath they compare them to past fires and mention six to seven years for past recoveries. BTW, ordinary polygons won't do for this. You'll need a multipolygon to exclude the Mount Wilson observatory and some campgrounds that were saved from the fires burning all around them. :) -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 08:09, Andrew Harvey wrote: > > During Australia's fires last season, I did contemplate mapping active > fire fronts, given I could see with my own eyes where the flames were up to > and I could have done a more accurate job for a small area than what the > government authority was publishing at the time. However due to the fast > changing nature of it and temporary nature of the active front, I don't > think it's worth mapping. > It may not be sensible to map active fire fronts in OSM itself but something like umap seems well-suited for that purpose. It doesn't "contaminate" the OSM database and is relatively easy to clean up when the fire has been dealt with. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Sep 30, 2020, at 2:31 AM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> This is a classic case where you should set up a separate
> database to save the polygons and overlay them with OSM data.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Sarah. However… (and it’s not polygons
plural, I only entered into the map this singular case, though with this
discussion and other firefighters chiming in that these can be useful data in
OSM, they could be talked about as a particular class of object)…
> For one thing, the description sounds like it is not really
> suitable for OSM. It describes a past even ("the perimeter
> firefighters used weeks ago")
That’s not quite what I said, I said “the extent of where firefighters kept the
fire limited by building a perimeter around it.”
> which is likely not ground
> surveyable because I doubt that the firefighters have put
> red tape all along the perimeters.
I’m not positive that this is true for the entire perimeter, but
bulldozer-cleared areas, hand-dug trenches many meters wide (to prevent a fire
“jumping” from one side of the perimeter to the other) and usage of cutlines
(for power cables / towers) and roadways to establish part of a perimeter are
all strategies I believe firefighters use to “build” such a fire perimeter.
This is much more clearly delineated in the real world than might be a bit of
red tape on a tree.
> The description is really
> fuzzy. It just defines that the area is "of interest for
> something".
It is of interest for two specific purposes (perhaps better outlined here than
in the recently-added note=* tag, though I only get 255 characters there): to
say “better mapping of existing land cover tags is very likely necessary HERE”
and to say “if you intend to hike in this area, know that due to (recent) fire,
closed roads and dangerous conditions, very much diminished in their ability to
provide a suitable recreational landscape, are likely found HERE."
> We have traditionally rejected this kind of
> mapping, see e.g. recent discussions on no-go zones in
> cities. The problem with them is that you don't find two
> mappers really agreeing what they mean to represent. That
> is bad in two ways: a) data consumers shy away from using them
> because they cannot rely on that they mean what they think they
> mean and b) the features tend to rot in the database because
> most mapper don't dare to touch data they don't understand.
I recall that “no-go” discussion and I agree that it was / is hard to define,
which does yield “two mappers won’t likely agree on what this means." Yet
here, I see the focus sharpening on what is meant by this polygon, as well as
others who say “yes, as a HOT mapper, a firefighter, someone for whom structure
re-building going on in an area in a construction-intensive way, delineating
this in the map is useful.” In a sense, this discussion is a (more dilute?)
form of a wiki proposal for fire=perimeter. Except it is not, as we only
discuss a single polygon, yet others say “I can see how THESE (not simply
“this”) can be useful data. As we agree on what fire=perimeter means, the
ambiguity reason (a) vanishes. And (b), as already discussed, such data don’t
(or shouldn’t) “rot,” since as mentioned before, they fall away from the map
when their usefulness vanishes.
> The other thing is that this kind of data is really easy to
> merge with OSM data. You don't need to merge attributes into
> specific OSM objects. You just want to state "anything inside
> my polygon needs attention". Perfect for overlays. So there
> really is no need at all to burden the OSM database with it.
I think “burden” for a lightly-tagged polygon is hyperbole (exaggeration), but
I do see the point that a sophisticated user who is curating data in, around or
associated with such a polygon might find an overlay strategy to be ideal. But
doing so leaves out all other OSM users (many, besides the single user noted
above) and all other “useful” reasons for the data being shared in the database
(which might become many, but are now discussed as “at least two: to better
re-map and to warn users “there was a fire here, use care”). Perhaps we have
identified an edge between where “data are better curated outside of OSM” and
“data that seriously benefit by being shared and hence Inside of OSM.” Who
decides? How?
> Just to emphasize again: I'm not saying that the data is useless.
> I just think it is better put elsewhere.
I respect and welcome intelligent discussion on which data belong “in or out”
of OSM, and why (or why not). Perhaps this topic is (or is becoming) partly or
mostly exactly that.
SteveA
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 01:55:35AM -0700, stevea wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2020, at 12:01 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> > So it seems then that what you're mapping here isn't so much the active
> > fire front, it's the burnt area given you want it to stick around after the
> > flames are out.
>
> Neither of these two, really. Certainly not the active fire front: the fire
> is out (for about a week now, but it burned for about six weeks). Nor “the
> burnt area” exactly, but rather a polygon which represents the EXTENT of
> where firefighters kept the fire limited by building a perimeter around it.
> Some (I’d guess much or even most) of it IS burned, no doubt, but exactly
> where is not fully yet known — but burned areas certainly ARE inside of this
> polygon. This is useful because it shows not only where OSM mappers (like
> me) will need to update landcover (and in some limited cases, landUSE, too)
> as we update map data, but where map data consumers such as hikers in the
> area (like me) will want to know “there may be closed roads, dangerous areas
> and severely limited viewscapes, wildlife (both flora and fauna) et cetera to
> enjoy were I to recreate here.” These are but two valuable reasons for this
> fire=perimeter remaining in the map, until the polygon's usefulness
> essentially becomes exhausted (there are no longer reasons for these data to
> remain).
This is a classic case where you should set up a separate
database to save the polygons and overlay them with OSM data.
For one thing, the description sounds like it is not really
suitable for OSM. It describes a past even ("the perimeter
firefighters used weeks ago") which is likely not ground
surveyable because I doubt that the firefighters have put
red tape all along the perimeters. The description is really
fuzzy. It just defines that the area is "of interest for
something". We have traditionally rejected this kind of
mapping, see e.g. recent discussions on no-go zones in
cities. The problem with them is that you don't find two
mappers really agreeing what they mean to represent. That
is bad in two ways: a) data consumers shy away from using them
because they cannot rely on that they mean what they think they
mean and b) the features tend to rot in the database because
most mapper don't dare to touch data they don't understand.
The other thing is that this kind of data is really easy to
merge with OSM data. You don't need to merge attributes into
specific OSM objects. You just want to state "anything inside
my polygon needs attention". Perfect for overlays. So there
really is no need at all to burden the OSM database with it.
Just to emphasize again: I'm not saying that the data is useless.
I just think it is better put elsewhere.
Sarah
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Sep 30, 2020, at 12:01 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote: > So it seems then that what you're mapping here isn't so much the active fire > front, it's the burnt area given you want it to stick around after the flames > are out. Neither of these two, really. Certainly not the active fire front: the fire is out (for about a week now, but it burned for about six weeks). Nor “the burnt area” exactly, but rather a polygon which represents the EXTENT of where firefighters kept the fire limited by building a perimeter around it. Some (I’d guess much or even most) of it IS burned, no doubt, but exactly where is not fully yet known — but burned areas certainly ARE inside of this polygon. This is useful because it shows not only where OSM mappers (like me) will need to update landcover (and in some limited cases, landUSE, too) as we update map data, but where map data consumers such as hikers in the area (like me) will want to know “there may be closed roads, dangerous areas and severely limited viewscapes, wildlife (both flora and fauna) et cetera to enjoy were I to recreate here.” These are but two valuable reasons for this fire=perimeter remaining in the map, until the polygon's usefulness essentially becomes exhausted (there are no longer reasons for these data to remain). > During Australia's fires last season, I did contemplate mapping active fire > fronts, given I could see with my own eyes where the flames were up to and I > could have done a more accurate job for a small area than what the government > authority was publishing at the time. However due to the fast changing nature > of it and temporary nature of the active front, I don't think it's worth > mapping. I agree with you those data are of a “more ephemeral” nature and so are much less useful to include in the map. > For burnt areas and recovery progress, sure this is not temporary (could be a > few months to years for evidence on the ground) and it's not fast changing, > once an area is burnt it stays burnt. So yeah you could map it, but from my > experience in Australia this again wouldn't be worth it (not saying that you > shouldn't map it, the way isn't really harmful and I'm not local, so not > telling you what to do). The main reason here is that the burn isn't uniform, > patches are noticeably burnt to a higher degree than others and some patches > might be unaffected, and it can be hard to survey this. It's also hard to > know when to remove it from OSM, because after all OSM doesn't contain > historical features which aren't found on the ground anymore, so at some > point OpenHistoricalMap becomes more appropriate. I saw someone say “six to seven years” (as what might pass for “recovery” to a large degree) to have “taken root” and after living most of my life here, that sounds about right. This length of time is similar for human structures (houses, barns…) as well as (the beginning of) the natural world to have begun to bounce back. (Here, insurance, permits, construction, re-population can and do take years). However, do know that this area's redwood trees can be a thousand years old (rare, but we have those). Summer 2008 I hiked a couple hours drive south of here (Big Sur, Ventana Wilderness…) after a major fire and even when trails re-opened only nine or ten weeks after the burn and most of it looked like a moonscape, I saw the literal “green shoots” beginning to sprout, starting the growth cycle anew. (I have pictures!). After six, eight, ten years, it begins to look “more like it once did,” but no sooner. > Satellites do a pretty good job of finding out which areas burned and to what > degree, so I'm happy mostly to just rely on rasters from satellite instead of > hand traced and vectors in OSM. The latter define the bounds of the former, as the former become available. And not just for tracing / better mapping with newer imagery (as above), but for “map data consumers” (hikers…) alike (as above). SteveA ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
sent from a phone > On 30. Sep 2020, at 08:30, stevea wrote: > > I'll say it once again: such a fire=perimeter IS a real-world "thing," > represented in OSM by a lightweight datum that I find to be "worth it" to be > in the map. +1 it is also clearly verifiable on the ground and will remain so for some time. Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
So it seems then that what you're mapping here isn't so much the active fire front, it's the burnt area given you want it to stick around after the flames are out. During Australia's fires last season, I did contemplate mapping active fire fronts, given I could see with my own eyes where the flames were up to and I could have done a more accurate job for a small area than what the government authority was publishing at the time. However due to the fast changing nature of it and temporary nature of the active front, I don't think it's worth mapping. For burnt areas and recovery progress, sure this is not temporary (could be a few months to years for evidence on the ground) and it's not fast changing, once an area is burnt it stays burnt. So yeah you could map it, but from my experience in Australia this again wouldn't be worth it (not saying that you shouldn't map it, the way isn't really harmful and I'm not local, so not telling you what to do). The main reason here is that the burn isn't uniform, patches are noticeably burnt to a higher degree than others and some patches might be unaffected, and it can be hard to survey this. It's also hard to know when to remove it from OSM, because after all OSM doesn't contain historical features which aren't found on the ground anymore, so at some point OpenHistoricalMap becomes more appropriate. Satellites do a pretty good job of finding out which areas burned and to what degree, so I'm happy mostly to just rely on rasters from satellite instead of hand traced and vectors in OSM. On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 16:30, stevea wrote: > It appears somewhat-established (in this thread) that data consumers both > DO and WILL find a datum of a polygon tagged fire=perimeter to be useful. > This might be for "remap HERE when newer imagery becomes available" > purposes (to a mapper in the area like me), to "might want to avoid hiking > in this area as some roads / trails may remain or be closed, and it can be > quite dangerous with "stump-slump" causing trail failures / slippages..." > purposes (to a hiker in the area like me). Not to mention other reasons / > purposes cited here. > > I'll say it once again: such a fire=perimeter IS a real-world "thing," > represented in OSM by a lightweight datum that I find to be "worth it" to > be in the map. It serves both better-near-future-mapping purposes as well > as end-user / map consumer purposes. I find that "balance" (storage cost > in the database, whether such a datum should or shouldn't be "in the map at > all," its usefulness to diverse OSM audiences for various, useful > purposes...) to have value, even significance (though I'm local, so I'll > grant I'm biased). It seems others find similar value, too and agree that > "sharing" such data, as OSM does, is both valid and valuable (to some) data > to map. > > After all, we don't want to "hold back people from using (such data) in > creative, productive, or unexpected ways," do we? > > Thanks for great feedback here, > SteveA > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
It appears somewhat-established (in this thread) that data consumers both DO and WILL find a datum of a polygon tagged fire=perimeter to be useful. This might be for "remap HERE when newer imagery becomes available" purposes (to a mapper in the area like me), to "might want to avoid hiking in this area as some roads / trails may remain or be closed, and it can be quite dangerous with "stump-slump" causing trail failures / slippages..." purposes (to a hiker in the area like me). Not to mention other reasons / purposes cited here. I'll say it once again: such a fire=perimeter IS a real-world "thing," represented in OSM by a lightweight datum that I find to be "worth it" to be in the map. It serves both better-near-future-mapping purposes as well as end-user / map consumer purposes. I find that "balance" (storage cost in the database, whether such a datum should or shouldn't be "in the map at all," its usefulness to diverse OSM audiences for various, useful purposes...) to have value, even significance (though I'm local, so I'll grant I'm biased). It seems others find similar value, too and agree that "sharing" such data, as OSM does, is both valid and valuable (to some) data to map. After all, we don't want to "hold back people from using (such data) in creative, productive, or unexpected ways," do we? Thanks for great feedback here, SteveA ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 5:11 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > We don't mapped parked vehicles unless they are 'permanent', same should > be adopted for fires, floods, earth quakes and volcanic eruptions. > > If there is no permanent effect then mapping it is at best a temporary > thing. > Having lived for awhile somewhere with volcanic eruptions, this is not a good comparison (at least in the Hawaii sense). Those volcanic eruptions cause a permanent change to land cover that remains for centuries. Eruptions that are over 100 years old are still plainly visible in satellite view, and do not naturally reforest for centuries. Generally the only thing that causes a lava field to disappear is that it gets covered by a new eruption, and these events are typically years to decades apart. They are very real things on the ground that would be of interest, e.g., for hikers traversing over them. I'm not sure if anyone has ever mapped volcanic eruption perimeters, but it would seem perfectly reasonable to me to map inactive lava fields once an eruption is over. > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 10:11, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Of what use is the data to mappers and/or data consumers? > > For mappers it may help to know what areas require remapping (buildings > etc). > > Data consumers? I would think the local authorities already have the fire > area well mapped form more current information than OSM has. > Some people go for walks/hikes through forested areas. In the case of the California fires, some routes throuegh burned areas are unsafe because the ground is subject to slippage and will be for many years. At the very least a temporary change to the routes themselves is required. But even where the routes themselves are safe, some will have vistas of undamaged trees whilst others will have vistas of burned-out trees. Some hikers may wish to choose their route based upon what will be visible. California isn't Australia. It takes many years to recover from fires. Around 6 or 7 years. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On 27/9/20 5:51 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: I am a bit dubious about value of updating fire=perimeter It is something that changes extremely quickly, we should not encourage people to survey perimeter of ACTIVE fire, OSM is doomed to be strictly worse source of fire perimeter than alternative sources > fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and might map here, both present and future. The aftermath of this fire (>85,000 acres this fire alone) will last for decades, and for OSM to not reflect this in the map The Australian fires have less long term significance as most of the flora has mechanisms to cope with fire, some even needs fire to propagate. Obviously, we should (try to) update map where situation changed. We don't mapped parked vehicles unless they are 'permanent', same should be adopted for fires, floods, earth quakes and volcanic eruptions. If there is no permanent effect then mapping it is at best a temporary thing. Delete building that will not be rebuild (mark them as destroyed:building=* until aerial imagery will update) [deleting buildings and remapping them as they get reconstructed may be viable in cases of heavy mapper presence] Delete other permanently destroyed objects and so on. > Do we have landcover tags which could replace landuse=forest or natural=wood with something like natural=fire_scarred? AFAIK nothing established, see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-March/035435.html for related discussion about wind damage. Note: While you state "landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used" others disagree with this statement and use the tag to indicate how the land is used as would be indicated by the key 'landuse'. There is already a tag for a tree covered area "natural=wood" and that is a better tag to use for tree covered areas. Continued use of the key 'landuse' for things other than true land use will simply result in the continued denigration of the key with things like landuse=sand, landuse=scrub, landuse=mud and so on. Sep 24, 2020, 23:30 by stevea...@softworkers.com: I didn't get a single reply on this (see below), which I find surprising, especially as there are currently even larger fires that are more widespread all across the Western United States. I now ask if there are additional, appropriate polygons with tags I'm not familiar with regarding landcover that might be added to the map (as "landuse=forest" might be strictly true now only in a 'zoning' sense, as many of the actual trees that MAKE these forests have sadly burned down, or substantially so). Considering that there are literally millions and millions of acres of (newly) burned areas (forest, scrub, grassland, residential, commercial, industrial, public, private...), I'm surprised that OSM doesn't have some well-pondered and actual tags that reflect this situation. My initial tagging of this (simply tagged, but enormous) polygon as "fire=perimeter" was coined on my part, but as I search wiki, taginfo and Overpass Turbo queries for similar data in the map, I come up empty. First, do others think it is important that we map these? I say yes, as this fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and might map here, both present and future. The aftermath of this fire (>85,000 acres this fire alone) will last for decades, and for OSM to not reflect this in the map (somehow, better bolstered than a simple, though huge, polygon tagged with fire=perimeter, start_date and end_date) seems OSM "cartographically misses something." I know that HOT mappers map the "present- and aftermath-" of humanitarian disasters, I've HOT-participated myself. So, considering the thousands of structures that burned (most of them homes), tens of thousands of acres which are burn-scarred and distinctly different than their landcover, millions of trees (yes, really) and even landuse is now currently tagged, I look for guidance — beyond the simple tag of fire=perimeter on a large polygon. Second, if we do choose to "better" map these incidents and results (they are life- and planet-altering on a grand scale) how might we choose to do that? Do we have landcover tags which could replace landuse=forest or natural=wood with something like natural=fire_scarred? (I'm making that up, but it or something like it could work). How and when might we replace these with something less severe? On the other hand, if it isn't appropriate that we map any of this, please say so. Thank you, especially any guidance offered from HOT contributors who have worked on post-fire humanitarian disasters, SteveA California (who has returned home after evacuation, relatively safe now that this fire is 100% contained) On Aug 29, 2020, at 7:20 PM, stevea wrote:
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 3:30 PM Yves wrote: > > > Le 27 septembre 2020 21:43:31 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson < > pelder...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > >The idea that natural=wood is for natural woods and landuse=forest is for > >managed forests has too little practical support. > > Yet, this is one of the first thing I learn in my early days in OSM. > Yves > > Same here. I don't have a problem with landuse=forestry if that would satisfy the concern that landuse=forest is too widely used. That still leaves the problem of the following tags. landuse=forest 4.7M uses according to taginfo landuse=logging 58K natural=wood 6.6M uses Landuse=logging might be a better tag than landuse=forestry. It has had a wiki [1] page since 2018. I would recommend using landuse=logging since it is established and depreciating landuse=forest. natural=wood should be used for wooded areas with no commercial logging activity. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dlogging Best, Clifford -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
Le 27 septembre 2020 21:43:31 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson a écrit : >The idea that natural=wood is for natural woods and landuse=forest is for >managed forests has too little practical support. Yet, this is one of the first thing I learn in my early days in OSM. Yves ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Sep 27, 2020, at 12:43 PM, Peter Elderson wrote: > Clifford Snow : > I'm not sure there would be a consensus agreement to revise the wiki to > indicate landuse=forest should be used for timber production. Thoughts? > > I am sure there would not. landuse=forest just means the area has trees. I > think there is some consensus about that. > natural=forest: same. > The idea that natural=wood is for natural woods and landuse=forest is for > managed forests has too little practical support. Peter offers this with no evidence, so I question its validity. Furthermore, I offer that something like Approach 3 or Approach 1 (from our https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Forest) has been used by me in North America since 2009 (and I am not the only one; I collaborate with other OSM Contributors on "good use of OSM tagging in wooded areas" in areas I map so we avoid conflict and harmonize on our use of tags). So, "too little practical support" simply isn't true: I and my mapping activities (along with others) simply contradict this assertion. We have been contradicting this assertion for many, many years. > Since there is no consensus about other aspects than "there are trees", data > users and renderers will stick to this. Here, Peter predicts the future after reaching the false conclusion that "there is no consensus about other aspects." There is slow, emerging consensus that landuse=forest, natural=wood, landcover=trees, key managed=* with values yes or no... most certainly need much work, but "what exactly OSM should or will do" is a long way from having consensus established. We have absolutely no predictability about what data users and renderers will "stick to," let's not kid ourselves. I repeat myself, but what can be said is that trees, woods, forests and how we tag them need a lot of work if OSM is going to comprehensively capture the very wide semantics about these in the real, global world with a finite set of tags to capture these semantics. We'd do well to improve these, but I'll agree with anybody who says "this is difficult work." SteveA ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
Clifford Snow : > I'm not sure there would be a consensus agreement to revise the wiki to > indicate landuse=forest should be used for timber production. Thoughts? > I am sure there would not. landuse=forest just means the area has trees. I think there is some consensus about that. natural=forest: same. The idea that natural=wood is for natural woods and landuse=forest is for managed forests has too little practical support. Since there is no consensus about other aspects than "there are trees", data users and renderers will stick to this. > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 18:39, Clifford Snow wrote: > > I'm not sure there would be a consensus agreement to revise the wiki to > indicate landuse=forest should be used for timber production. Thoughts? > >From the last seven or eight times this has come up in the past couple of years... 1) Somebody says we ought to make a distinction between trees that are for timber production and trees that are not. 2) The word "forest" is wrong for timber production. Because of the vagaries of English it should be "forestry" as forests are not always for timber production. It's also syntactically better English. 3) As always we have the problem of all the landuse=forest that has already been mapped that would have to be checked. Which is another argument for using landuse=forestry and hoping landuse=forest eventually fades away. 4) People bring up various objections to landuse=forestry. Some insist that we absolutely must stick with landuse=forest and its unfortunate ambiguities. Others argue that we shouldn't make any distinction and that every group of trees should be natural=wood whether it is used for timber production or not. 5) The argument then rapidly goes downhill, no agreement is reached, and we drop the issue until the next time it comes up. 6) I get even more cynical than I was the last time the issue came up. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 7:24 AM Clifford Snow wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:46 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > >> landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used >> > > I don't believe everyone around here will agree with that interpretation. > I live in an area with significant logging. Typically I will see logging > trucks bringing in just cut timber to be milled when I'm out for just a > short drive. Timber production is a big industry in Alaska, British > Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. > I did a check of Washington and saw that there are a number of landuse=forest that should be natural=trees. I suspect that it's also happening elsewhere. > >> It is also basically universally interpreted this way by various data >> consumers. >> > > That may be for cartographic interpretation. But researchers may have a > different opinion. A researcher just interested in potential wildfire areas > may not be interested in the difference, but someone looking at how much > land is being used for forestry products may have a different opinion. Or > in mountainous states where clear cutting often causes landslides. I know > our state studies where it's dangerous to clear cut because the area is so > steep. > > The wiki on landuse=forest does need some help. We shouldn't be offering a > tag with such unclear use cases as landuse=forest currently is written. > I'm not sure there would be a consensus agreement to revise the wiki to indicate landuse=forest should be used for timber production. Thoughts? > > > -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:46 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used > I don't believe everyone around here will agree with that interpretation. I live in an area with significant logging. Typically I will see logging trucks bringing in just cut timber to be milled when I'm out for just a short drive. Timber production is a big industry in Alaska, British Columbia, Washington, Oregon, and California. > > It is also basically universally interpreted this way by various data > consumers. > That may be for cartographic interpretation. But researchers may have a different opinion. A researcher just interested in potential wildfire areas may not be interested in the difference, but someone looking at how much land is being used for forestry products may have a different opinion. Or in mountainous states where clear cutting often causes landslides. I know our state studies where it's dangerous to clear cut because the area is so steep. The wiki on landuse=forest does need some help. We shouldn't be offering a tag with such unclear use cases as landuse=forest currently is written. Best, Clifford -- @osm_washington www.snowandsnow.us OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Sep 27, 2020, at 12:51 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > I am a bit dubious about value of updating fire=perimeter It isn't anticipated to be "updated." It is a static boundary where "inside of this polygon, there might be burned / destroyed landcover (and perhaps some buildings, if they are / were there), outside of this polygon, there is / was no fire." > It is something that changes extremely quickly, we should > not encourage people to survey perimeter of ACTIVE fire, > OSM is doomed to be strictly worse source of fire perimeter > than alternative sources I'm not surveying this (though I would like to, many areas are inaccessible or dangerous). I'm saying the polygon tagged fire=permiter is a useful data structure in the map to delineate where the bounds (perimeter) of a fire was (now it is "was," for a while it was "is"). So, use ground truth, personally-gathered sources, satellite data... to better characterize that what was once there (landcover in the form of trees and scrub, largely) is quite likely no longer there. So, "map this area better." > Obviously, we should (try to) update map where situation changed. Maybe it wasn't obvious from my posts about this, yes. This is the whole reason for entering these data. > Delete building that will not be rebuild (mark them as destroyed:building=* > until aerial imagery will update) > [deleting buildings and remapping them as they get reconstructed may > be viable in cases of heavy mapper presence] > Delete other permanently destroyed objects and so on. It is still too early to make final determinations of buildings: some people who lost homes to fire will rebuild, some will not. > > Do we have landcover tags which could replace landuse=forest > or natural=wood with something like natural=fire_scarred? > > AFAIK nothing established, see > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-March/035435.html > for related discussion about wind damage. Thank you, that is interesting and relevant! So, preliminary results are that such tagging is rare, but it does happen. SteveA ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
On Sep 27, 2020, at 12:45 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote: > landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used > > It is also basically universally interpreted this way by various data > consumers. Mateusz, I do not disagree with you to simply disagree: landuse=forest is not "basically universally interpreted this way." Rather, I ask you to look at https://wiki.osm.org/wiki/Forest which says there are at least a half-dozen (six, 6) different approaches taken by OSM mappers using the landuse=forestry and natural=wood tags. "Around here" (in California, USA, where I map and tag forests and wooded areas), we use something much like Approach 3, except it isn't strictly true we view "most woodland as managed or maintained." Rather, we view "woodland as managed or maintained" when we know it is both "zoned" for Timber Production and there is an active "logging permit" that has been legally approved, or "forestry action" taking place: trees being felled, logs being taken away via sluice, truck or other method, replanting, etc. "Around here" (and by contrast to landuse=forestry), we do use the natural=wood tag for "predominantly wooded areas where there is no active logging" or logging is known to not be permitted. SteveA ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
I am a bit dubious about value of updating fire=perimeter It is something that changes extremely quickly, we should not encourage people to survey perimeter of ACTIVE fire, OSM is doomed to be strictly worse source of fire perimeter than alternative sources > fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and might map here, both present and future. The aftermath of this fire (>85,000 acres this fire alone) will last for decades, and for OSM to not reflect this in the map Obviously, we should (try to) update map where situation changed. Delete building that will not be rebuild (mark them as destroyed:building=* until aerial imagery will update) [deleting buildings and remapping them as they get reconstructed may be viable in cases of heavy mapper presence] Delete other permanently destroyed objects and so on. > Do we have landcover tags which could replace landuse=forest or natural=wood with something like natural=fire_scarred? AFAIK nothing established, see https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-March/035435.html for related discussion about wind damage. Sep 24, 2020, 23:30 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > I didn't get a single reply on this (see below), which I find surprising, > especially as there are currently even larger fires that are more widespread > all across the Western United States. > > I now ask if there are additional, appropriate polygons with tags I'm not > familiar with regarding landcover that might be added to the map (as > "landuse=forest" might be strictly true now only in a 'zoning' sense, as many > of the actual trees that MAKE these forests have sadly burned down, or > substantially so). > > Considering that there are literally millions and millions of acres of > (newly) burned areas (forest, scrub, grassland, residential, commercial, > industrial, public, private...), I'm surprised that OSM doesn't have some > well-pondered and actual tags that reflect this situation. My initial > tagging of this (simply tagged, but enormous) polygon as "fire=perimeter" was > coined on my part, but as I search wiki, taginfo and Overpass Turbo queries > for similar data in the map, I come up empty. > > First, do others think it is important that we map these? I say yes, as this > fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and might map here, both > present and future. The aftermath of this fire (>85,000 acres this fire > alone) will last for decades, and for OSM to not reflect this in the map > (somehow, better bolstered than a simple, though huge, polygon tagged with > fire=perimeter, start_date and end_date) seems OSM "cartographically misses > something." I know that HOT mappers map the "present- and aftermath-" of > humanitarian disasters, I've HOT-participated myself. So, considering the > thousands of structures that burned (most of them homes), tens of thousands > of acres which are burn-scarred and distinctly different than their > landcover, millions of trees (yes, really) and even landuse is now currently > tagged, I look for guidance — beyond the simple tag of fire=perimeter on a > large polygon. > > Second, if we do choose to "better" map these incidents and results (they are > life- and planet-altering on a grand scale) how might we choose to do that? > Do we have landcover tags which could replace landuse=forest or natural=wood > with something like natural=fire_scarred? (I'm making that up, but it or > something like it could work). How and when might we replace these with > something less severe? On the other hand, if it isn't appropriate that we > map any of this, please say so. > > Thank you, especially any guidance offered from HOT contributors who have > worked on post-fire humanitarian disasters, > > SteveA > California (who has returned home after evacuation, relatively safe now that > this fire is 100% contained) > > > On Aug 29, 2020, at 7:20 PM, stevea wrote: > >> Not sure if crossposting to talk-us is correct, but it is a "home list" for >> me. >> >> I've created a large fire perimeter in OSM from public sources, >> http://www.osm.org/way/842280873 . This is a huge fire (sadly, there are >> larger ones right now, too), over 130 square miles, and caused the >> evacuation of every third person in my county (yes). There are hundreds, >> perhaps thousands of structures, mostly residential homes, which have burned >> down and the event has "completely changed" giant redwoods in and the >> character of California's oldest state park (Big Basin). >> >> This perimeter significantly affects landuse, landcover and human patterns >> of movement and activity in this part of the world for a significant time to >> come. It is a "major disaster." I'm curious how HOT teams might delineate >> such a thing (and I've participated in a HOT fire team, mapping barns, water >> sources for helicopter dips and other human structures during a large fire >> near me), I've simply made a polygon tagged
Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?
landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used It is also basically universally interpreted this way by various data consumers. Sep 25, 2020, 00:05 by cliff...@snowandsnow.us: > Steve, > Just a reminder, landuse is to tag what the land is used for. landuse=forest > is for areas that have harvestable wood products, ie trees. Just because > there was a fire doesn't mean the landuse changes. Landcover is a better tag > for burnt areas as well as areas just clearcut. > > > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:31 PM stevea <> stevea...@softworkers.com> > wrote: > >> I didn't get a single reply on this (see below), which I find surprising, >> especially as there are currently even larger fires that are more widespread >> all across the Western United States. >> >> I now ask if there are additional, appropriate polygons with tags I'm not >> familiar with regarding landcover that might be added to the map (as >> "landuse=forest" might be strictly true now only in a 'zoning' sense, as >> many of the actual trees that MAKE these forests have sadly burned down, or >> substantially so). >> >> Considering that there are literally millions and millions of acres of >> (newly) burned areas (forest, scrub, grassland, residential, commercial, >> industrial, public, private...), I'm surprised that OSM doesn't have some >> well-pondered and actual tags that reflect this situation. My initial >> tagging of this (simply tagged, but enormous) polygon as "fire=perimeter" >> was coined on my part, but as I search wiki, taginfo and Overpass Turbo >> queries for similar data in the map, I come up empty. >> >> First, do others think it is important that we map these? I say yes, as >> this fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and might map here, >> both present and future. The aftermath of this fire (>85,000 acres this >> fire alone) will last for decades, and for OSM to not reflect this in the >> map (somehow, better bolstered than a simple, though huge, polygon tagged >> with fire=perimeter, start_date and end_date) seems OSM "cartographically >> misses something." I know that HOT mappers map the "present- and >> aftermath-" of humanitarian disasters, I've HOT-participated myself. So, >> considering the thousands of structures that burned (most of them homes), >> tens of thousands of acres which are burn-scarred and distinctly different >> than their landcover, millions of trees (yes, really) and even landuse is >> now currently tagged, I look for guidance — beyond the simple tag of >> fire=perimeter on a large polygon. >> >> Second, if we do choose to "better" map these incidents and results (they >> are life- and planet-altering on a grand scale) how might we choose to do >> that? Do we have landcover tags which could replace landuse=forest or >> natural=wood with something like natural=fire_scarred? (I'm making that up, >> but it or something like it could work). How and when might we replace >> these with something less severe? On the other hand, if it isn't >> appropriate that we map any of this, please say so. >> >> Thank you, especially any guidance offered from HOT contributors who have >> worked on post-fire humanitarian disasters, >> >> SteveA >> California (who has returned home after evacuation, relatively safe now >> that this fire is 100% contained) >> >> >> On Aug 29, 2020, at 7:20 PM, stevea <>> stevea...@softworkers.com>> > wrote: >> > Not sure if crossposting to talk-us is correct, but it is a "home list" >> for me. >> > >> > I've created a large fire perimeter in OSM from public sources, >> >> http://www.osm.org/way/842280873>> . This is a huge fire (sadly, there are >> larger ones right now, too), over 130 square miles, and caused the >> evacuation of every third person in my county (yes). There are hundreds, >> perhaps thousands of structures, mostly residential homes, which have burned >> down and the event has "completely changed" giant redwoods in and the >> character of California's oldest state park (Big Basin). >> > >> > This perimeter significantly affects landuse, landcover and human >> patterns of movement and activity in this part of the world for a >> significant time to come. It is a "major disaster." I'm curious how HOT >> teams might delineate such a thing (and I've participated in a HOT fire >> team, mapping barns, water sources for helicopter dips and other human >> structures during a large fire near me), I've simply made a polygon tagged >> fire=perimeter, a name=* tag and a start_date. I don't expect rendering, >> it's meant to be an "up to right about here" (inside the polygon is/was a >> burning fire, outside was no fire). I wouldn't say it is more accurate than >> 20 to 50 meters on any edge, an "across a wide street" distance to be "off" >> is OK with me, considering this fire's size, but if a slight skew jiggles >> the whole thing into place better, feel
