Re: [Tagging] RFC - landcover clearing

[Mateusz Konieczny]

22. Sep 2018 10:16 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :


> > On 22/09/18 17:39, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> > 
>> 
>>   22. Sep 2018 00:38 by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com 
>> >> :
>>   
>>   
>>> >>> On 21/09/18 23:16, Mateusz  Konieczny wrote:
>>> >>> 
    I am not sure why landcover=clearing is described as
 better than other.   
       If someone wants to leave gixme, the fixme 
 key or OSMnote is the best solution. 
    
>>> 
>>> Best solution for what?
>>>   
>>   
>>
>>   
>>   
>> For marking clearing to be mapped. Obviously, mapping itproperly
>>   
>> would be better. But fixme/notes at least in theory can beprocessed 
>> by other mappers,
>>   
>> in case of clearings - also by armchair mappers.
>> 
> 
> But then the feature is harder to find in the data base. 
> Note that clearings have already been marked as landuse=clearing. 
>




I am not sure why you believe that tagging TODO item as landcover tag rather 
than established

fixme key is preferable.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - landcover clearing

[Warin]

On 22/09/18 17:39, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


22. Sep 2018 00:38 by 61sundow...@gmail.com 
:


On 21/09/18 23:16, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

I am not sure why landcover=clearing is described as better
than other.

If someone wants to leave gixme, the fixme key or OSM note is
the best solution.


Best solution for what?


For marking clearing to be mapped. Obviously, mapping it properly

would be better. But fixme/notes at least in theory can be processed 
by other mappers,


in case of clearings - also by armchair mappers.



But then the feature is harder to find in the data base.
Note that clearings have already been marked as landuse=clearing.



I have no idea why encouraging landcover=clearing would be preferable.



In preference to landuse=clearing.





6. Aug 2018 02:11 by 61sundow...@gmail.com
:

and stop land covers becoming regarded as a legitimate use
of the key landuse.


too late for that, see landuse=forest


So landuse=sand
landuse=dirt
landuse=rock
landuse=scrub
landuse=valley
landuse=peak
landuse=cliff
landuse=tunnel

will all be fine to use?
I don't think so.

No, because there are already tags for tagging that.

Despite that people are using landuse=sand, landuse=scrub... and it is 
probably because of the use of landuse=forest and landuse=grass that 
suggests this misuse.


And there are no tags for clearing.. so they use landuse=clearing.

And round the circle we go again.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC - landcover clearing

[Mateusz Konieczny]

22. Sep 2018 00:38 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :


> > On 21/09/18 23:16, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> > 
>> >> I am not sure why landcover=clearing is described as better   
>>  than other.>>   
>>   >>   >> If someone wants to leave gixme, the fixme key or OSM note 
>> isthe best solution. 
>>   >> 
> 
> Best solution for what?
>




For marking clearing to be mapped. Obviously, mapping it properly

would be better. But fixme/notes at least in theory can be processed by other 
mappers,

in case of clearings - also by armchair mappers.




I have no idea why encouraging landcover=clearing would be preferable.


 


> 
> 
>>   
>>   >>   6. Aug 2018 02:11 by >> 61sundow...@gmail.com 
>> >> :
>>   
>>  
>>   
>>> and stop landcovers becoming regarded as a legitimate use of the 
>>> key landuse.
>>>   
>>   
>>
>>   
>>   
>> too late for that, see landuse=forest 
>>   
>> 
> 
> So landuse=sand
> landuse=dirt
> landuse=rock
> landuse=scrub
> landuse=valley
> landuse=peak
> landuse=cliff
> landuse=tunnel
> 
> will all be fine to use? 
> I don't think so. 
>

 

No, because there are already tags for tagging that.

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - landcover clearing

[Warin]

On 21/09/18 23:16, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

I am not sure why landcover=clearing is described as better than other.

If someone wants to leave gixme, the fixme key or OSM note is the best 
solution.


Best solution for what?

This started because a group wanted to map clearings from imagery.
Why I don't know - they have not communicated despite attempts at contact.
They did not use a fixme etc by used something they thought described 
what they were seeing in imagery.
A fixme tries to contact locals to map the thing, as this group wants 
things done in a hurry they don't use fixmes.




6. Aug 2018 02:11 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :

and stop land covers becoming regarded as a legitimate use of the
key landuse.


too late for that, see landuse=forest



So landuse=sand
landuse=dirt
landuse=rock
landuse=scrub
landuse=valley
landuse=peak
landuse=cliff
landuse=tunnel

will all be fine to use?
I don't think so.


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - landcover clearing

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I am not sure why landcover=clearing is described as better than other.
If someone wants to leave gixme, the fixme key or OSM note is the best 
solution. 

6. Aug 2018 02:11 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :

 

> and stop land covers becoming regarded as a legitimate  use of the key 
> landuse. 
>




too late for that, see landuse=forest 

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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - landcover clearing

[Warin]

On 09/08/18 08:47, marc marc wrote:

+1
the current proposal of the page seems to me to be a good promise to
improve the current situation while remaining realistic with the fact
that some mapper do not always have all the information or all the
knowledge to make the perfect solution.
in this sense the page is well enough to push good practices forward
while giving a scheme for imperfect v1 but allowing to have useful
information for future improvement (I can easily imagine a
StreetComplete quest that would ask a local contributor what
exactly the hole in the forest consists of)

the page only need to be moved to /Proposed_features/ :)


Opps!! Thanks. I have copied it... and placed warning on the top of the 
original page with a link.

New copied page is at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover%3Dclearing

I am yet to contact the original HOT task for the area that I have covered as 
trees (with holes).
{Too many things to do ! :)}

It looks now to be visible 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/528264806#map=13/8.4987/-83.4343
Zooming out and the 'clearings' disappear but you can then see the extent of 
the trees - at least as far as I have gone.
Zoom in and you can see more detail of the 'clearings'.




Le 09. 08. 18 à 00:27, Warin a écrit :

There are some who would then say that a 'clearing' that is made by man
should not be in the key 'natural' but in the key 'man_made'.

A 'clearing' may not have ever had the surrounding vegetation - an area
of rock for example.

The 'clearing' is about a change in the land cover, not about an
absence, an absence would be 'space' - a vacuum ...there will be
something there, but arm chair mappers may not be able to identify
either the surrounding vegetation nor the areas vegetation.

On 09/08/18 02:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

what about natural=clearing? I don’t see “clearing” as a landcover
value that suits. Landcover is about what is there physically,
“clearing” is about the absence of what was there before.

Cheers,
Martin



sent from a phone

On 6. Aug 2018, at 02:11, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
> wrote:


Hi,
I have been looking at the values used with the landuse key to try
and stop land covers becoming regarded as a legitimate use of the key
landuse.


One strange value I came across was 'clearing'. No OSM wiki document.

I resolved this to mean a change in land cover usually from trees to
a 'clear' area.

Most of these look to be from HOT mapping.


Other instances of the value 'clearing' are natural=clearing
andwood=clearing.

So I am thinking that these would best combined into the one tag
landcover=clearing

A proposal page is ready for comments - link -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover%3Dclearing

The basics are :

Definition: An area where surrounding larger vegetation, such as
trees, are not present. This provides more light than the surrounding
area. It may have lower vegetation growing, or it may be an outcrop
of rock.

Rationale:
Defines use of already existing value and suggest better ways of
mapping these features. It is meant to encourage better mapping and
suggest that this tag is a last resort.

Key
The key landcover is use as the 'best fit' as it marks the lack of a
surrounding land cover, so it is directly related to a land cover.
The area could all ready have a land use - part of a forestry area
for example. The area could have been made by man or nature so
neither of the keys natural or man_made would suit all situations.

How to map
The section on 'how to map' gives 4 options of how to map a clearing;
map what is there, map what is surrounding, map both what is there
and surrounding or map with landcover=clearing.
Asking a mapper not to map this feature is not a good idea, mappers
should be encouraged to map not discouraged. If a mapper has found
this tag page then it is best to document better ways to tag the
feature with this tag being the lest desirable result that maps the
information rather than not mapping the information.
The listed order is a compromise. The better mapping ones come before
landcover=clearing to discourage it use. The simplest option first -
map what is there - as that is the easiest option. If they cannot
determine what is there then the next option - map the surrounds.
Then the combination of the first two. Then finally the last option
and least desirable. Hopefully this causes some though on what they
are mapping, rather than just using the tag.

__




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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - landcover clearing

[marc marc]

+1
the current proposal of the page seems to me to be a good promise to 
improve the current situation while remaining realistic with the fact 
that some mapper do not always have all the information or all the 
knowledge to make the perfect solution.
in this sense the page is well enough to push good practices forward 
while giving a scheme for imperfect v1 but allowing to have useful 
information for future improvement (I can easily imagine a 
StreetComplete quest that would ask a local contributor what
exactly the hole in the forest consists of)

the page only need to be moved to /Proposed_features/ :)

Le 09. 08. 18 à 00:27, Warin a écrit :
> There are some who would then say that a 'clearing' that is made by man 
> should not be in the key 'natural' but in the key 'man_made'.
> 
> A 'clearing' may not have ever had the surrounding vegetation - an area 
> of rock for example.
> 
> The 'clearing' is about a change in the land cover, not about an 
> absence, an absence would be 'space' - a vacuum ...there will be 
> something there, but arm chair mappers may not be able to identify 
> either the surrounding vegetation nor the areas vegetation.
> 
> On 09/08/18 02:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> what about natural=clearing? I don’t see “clearing” as a landcover 
>> value that suits. Landcover is about what is there physically, 
>> “clearing” is about the absence of what was there before.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> On 6. Aug 2018, at 02:11, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I have been looking at the values used with the landuse key to try 
>>> and stop land covers becoming regarded as a legitimate use of the key 
>>> landuse.
>>>
>>>
>>> One strange value I came across was 'clearing'. No OSM wiki document.
>>>
>>> I resolved this to mean a change in land cover usually from trees to 
>>> a 'clear' area.
>>>
>>> Most of these look to be from HOT mapping.
>>>
>>>
>>> Other instances of the value 'clearing' are natural=clearing 
>>> andwood=clearing.
>>>
>>> So I am thinking that these would best combined into the one tag  
>>> landcover=clearing
>>>
>>> A proposal page is ready for comments - link - 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover%3Dclearing
>>>
>>> The basics are :
>>>
>>> Definition: An area where surrounding larger vegetation, such as 
>>> trees, are not present. This provides more light than the surrounding 
>>> area. It may have lower vegetation growing, or it may be an outcrop 
>>> of rock.
>>>
>>> Rationale:
>>> Defines use of already existing value and suggest better ways of 
>>> mapping these features. It is meant to encourage better mapping and 
>>> suggest that this tag is a last resort.
>>>
>>> Key
>>> The key landcover is use as the 'best fit' as it marks the lack of a 
>>> surrounding land cover, so it is directly related to a land cover.
>>> The area could all ready have a land use - part of a forestry area 
>>> for example. The area could have been made by man or nature so 
>>> neither of the keys natural or man_made would suit all situations.
>>>
>>> How to map
>>> The section on 'how to map' gives 4 options of how to map a clearing; 
>>> map what is there, map what is surrounding, map both what is there 
>>> and surrounding or map with landcover=clearing.
>>> Asking a mapper not to map this feature is not a good idea, mappers 
>>> should be encouraged to map not discouraged. If a mapper has found 
>>> this tag page then it is best to document better ways to tag the 
>>> feature with this tag being the lest desirable result that maps the 
>>> information rather than not mapping the information.
>>> The listed order is a compromise. The better mapping ones come before 
>>> landcover=clearing to discourage it use. The simplest option first - 
>>> map what is there - as that is the easiest option. If they cannot 
>>> determine what is there then the next option - map the surrounds. 
>>> Then the combination of the first two. Then finally the last option 
>>> and least desirable. Hopefully this causes some though on what they 
>>> are mapping, rather than just using the tag.
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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 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] RFC - landcover clearing

[Warin]

There are some who would then say that a 'clearing' that is made by man 
should not be in the key 'natural' but in the key 'man_made'.


A 'clearing' may not have ever had the surrounding vegetation - an area 
of rock for example.


The 'clearing' is about a change in the land cover, not about an 
absence, an absence would be 'space' - a vacuum ...there will be 
something there, but arm chair mappers may not be able to identify 
either the surrounding vegetation nor the areas vegetation.


On 09/08/18 02:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
what about natural=clearing? I don’t see “clearing” as a landcover 
value that suits. Landcover is about what is there physically, 
“clearing” is about the absence of what was there before.


Cheers,
Martin



sent from a phone

On 6. Aug 2018, at 02:11, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:



Hi,
I have been looking at the values used with the landuse key to try 
and stop land covers becoming regarded as a legitimate use of the key 
landuse.



One strange value I came across was 'clearing'. No OSM wiki document.

I resolved this to mean a change in land cover usually from trees to 
a 'clear' area.


Most of these look to be from HOT mapping.


Other instances of the value 'clearing' are natural=clearing 
andwood=clearing.


So I am thinking that these would best combined into the one tag  
landcover=clearing


A proposal page is ready for comments - link - 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover%3Dclearing


The basics are :

Definition: An area where surrounding larger vegetation, such as 
trees, are not present. This provides more light than the surrounding 
area. It may have lower vegetation growing, or it may be an outcrop 
of rock.


Rationale:
Defines use of already existing value and suggest better ways of 
mapping these features. It is meant to encourage better mapping and 
suggest that this tag is a last resort.


Key
The key landcover is use as the 'best fit' as it marks the lack of a 
surrounding land cover, so it is directly related to a land cover.
The area could all ready have a land use - part of a forestry area 
for example. The area could have been made by man or nature so 
neither of the keys natural or man_made would suit all situations.


How to map
The section on 'how to map' gives 4 options of how to map a clearing; 
map what is there, map what is surrounding, map both what is there 
and surrounding or map with landcover=clearing.
Asking a mapper not to map this feature is not a good idea, mappers 
should be encouraged to map not discouraged. If a mapper has found 
this tag page then it is best to document better ways to tag the 
feature with this tag being the lest desirable result that maps the 
information rather than not mapping the information.
The listed order is a compromise. The better mapping ones come before 
landcover=clearing to discourage it use. The simplest option first - 
map what is there - as that is the easiest option. If they cannot 
determine what is there then the next option - map the surrounds. 
Then the combination of the first two. Then finally the last option 
and least desirable. Hopefully this causes some though on what they 
are mapping, rather than just using the tag.


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

Re: [Tagging] RFC - landcover clearing

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

what about natural=clearing? I don’t see “clearing” as a landcover value that 
suits. Landcover is about what is there physically, “clearing” is about the 
absence of what was there before.

Cheers,
Martin



sent from a phone

> On 6. Aug 2018, at 02:11, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I have been looking at the values used with the landuse key to try and stop 
> land covers becoming regarded as a legitimate use of the key landuse. 
> 
> 
> One strange value I came across was 'clearing'. No OSM wiki document. 
> 
> I resolved this to mean a change in land cover usually from trees to a 
> 'clear' area. 
> 
> Most of these look to be from HOT mapping. 
> 
> 
> Other instances of the value 'clearing' are natural=clearing and 
> wood=clearing.
> 
> So I am thinking that these would best combined into the one tag  
> landcover=clearing
> 
> A proposal page is ready for comments - link - 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover%3Dclearing
> 
> The basics are : 
> 
> Definition: An area where surrounding larger vegetation, such as trees,   
> are not present. This provides more light than the surrounding area. It may 
> have lower vegetation growing, or it may be an outcrop of rock. 
> 
> Rationale:
> Defines use of already existing value and suggest better ways of mapping 
> these features. It is meant to encourage better mapping and suggest that this 
> tag is a last resort. 
> 
> Key
> The key landcover is use as the 'best fit' as it marks the lack of a 
> surrounding land cover, so it is directly related to a land cover. 
> The area could all ready have a land use - part of a forestry area for 
> example. The area could have been made by man or nature so neither of the 
> keys natural or man_made would suit all situations. 
> 
> How to map
> The section on 'how to map' gives 4 options of how to map a clearing; map 
> what is there, map what is surrounding, map both what is there and 
> surrounding or map with landcover=clearing. 
> Asking a mapper not to map this feature is not a good idea, mappers should be 
> encouraged to map not discouraged. If a mapper has found this tag page then 
> it is best to document better ways to tag the feature with this tag being the 
> lest desirable result that maps the information rather than not mapping the 
> information. 
> The listed order is a compromise. The better mapping ones come before 
> landcover=clearing to discourage it use. The simplest option first - map what 
> is there - as that is the easiest option. If they cannot determine what is 
> there then the next option - map the surrounds. Then the combination of the 
> first two. Then finally the last option and least desirable. Hopefully this 
> causes some though on what they are mapping, rather than just using the tag. 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging