Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 13/06/18 23:01, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:00 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 13/06/18 19:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2018-06-13 11:44 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>:

13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com
:

2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>:

Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag
(rarely done for obvious reasons) and

what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is
owned by the public or privately owned?


Complicated and boring to survey, limited usefulness of this
information.


the usefulness of knowing the land ownership depends on the
jurisdiction.



The amount of time and effort in obtaining the information may be
beyond the mappers tolerance.
The may want to map other things with that time that they see as
much more important and usefull to them.
If the name ends with "State Forest" you know who operates it, it
is ultimately the State Government .

Access to state owned forestry areas is normally public.
Closed or at least restricted when logging or there is a special
event on - like a car rally.
These things are generally understood, infrequent and so not
normally mapped. These exceptions are what OSM does not cater for
well.


Yes.

I don't do a lot of landcover mapping, because I render my own maps 
with third-party landcover data. I do landcover for detail mapping in 
my own neighbourhood, for producing large-scale trail maps of specific 
small areas, or to override trouble spots in the third-party 
database.willing o


For landuse mapping, what chiefly concerns me is recreational 
opportunities.


To this end, I maintain a few imports of public lands in New York 
State, as well as mapping various public-access lands that are in 
private hands. I do try to map access in places where it's 
complicated. Some of these lands are managed for forestry - and I have 
no tag available to indicate this. Neither 'natural=wood' nor 
'landuse=forest' appear to mean anything more than 'shade this area 
green on the map, and draw trees on it.'


If this discussion reaches some sort of rough consensus, I'm certainly 
willing to do mechanical edits updating the few thousand areas that I 
imported. (Mechanical edits to correct systematic errors in imported 
data are, as I understand it, acceptable.) I'm not very happy with the 
use of those imports as evidence of 'this is tagging practice' - the 
current import is more 'least worst' tagging that will remain 
consistent with current rendering and with imports in neighbouring 
states. I'm NOT willing to retag with mechanical edits if the price of 
the retagging will be that the State Forests, Wildlife Management 
Areas, Watershed Recreation Areas, and so on will disappear from the 
main map.


What I want:

Showing that land is treed ('natural=wood' or the proposed 
'landcover=trees') is easy enough. 'landuse=forest' appears to be 
synonymous with both 'natural=wood' and 'landcover=trees' and so isn't 
useful to me, although I've tried consistently to use it to indicate 
designated land use and not landcover. The result has been rendering 
gaffes where trees are overlaid on water - but they don't bother me 
excessively, since most of those ponds will have trees again in a few 
decades, as human and beaver remodeling of the land shifts elsewhere.


'landuse=forest' to designate landcover is unworkable. As Warin said 
in an earlier post, a piece of land has one use. (I oversimplify; land 
may have secondary uses, for example, land managed for forestry with 
public recreation as a secondary objective, but NEITHER of those 
implies that a particular square metre is or is not tree-covered.) An 
object like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/175474 is an 
example. The land USE is, correctly, military - the land is used, for 
instance, for live fire exercises. The land COVER for large parts of 
the Academy is trees - what an ecologist would call 'temperate mixed 
forest'.


That treed land cover is contiguous with Bear Mountain/Harriman State 
Park (which should be boundary=national_park, but that's a different 
argument), Black Rock Forest (private land open to public outside 
certain seasons), Storm King State Park (managed, effectively, as 
leisure=nature_reserve), Storm King Art Center (amenity=museum - an 
outdoor sculpture gallery in a partly-wooded setting), and various 
private holdings (where I'm not trying to tag land use).


So, what I'm after is: some tag that I can use for something like the 
International Paper tract in the Adirondacks (not mapped because (a) I 
haven't got to it, and (b) the tagging would be just too 
controversial). It is owned by a private common-stock 

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:00 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13/06/18 19:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2018-06-13 11:44 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>> 13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>>
>> 2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>>
>>> Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag (rarely done for
>>> obvious reasons) and
>>>
>> what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is owned by the public
>> or privately owned?
>>
>>
>> Complicated and boring to survey, limited usefulness of this information.
>>
>
> the usefulness of knowing the land ownership depends on the jurisdiction.
>
>
> The amount of time and effort in obtaining the information may be beyond
> the mappers tolerance.
> The may want to map other things with that time that they see as much more
> important and usefull to them.
> If the name ends with "State Forest" you know who operates it, it is
> ultimately the State Government .
>
> Access to state owned forestry areas is normally public.
> Closed or at least restricted when logging or there is a special event on
> - like a car rally.
> These things are generally understood, infrequent and so not normally
> mapped. These exceptions are what OSM does not cater for well.
>

Yes.

I don't do a lot of landcover mapping, because I render my own maps with
third-party landcover data. I do landcover for detail mapping in my own
neighbourhood, for producing large-scale trail maps of specific small
areas, or to override trouble spots in the third-party database.willing o

For landuse mapping, what chiefly concerns me is recreational opportunities.

To this end, I maintain a few imports of public lands in New York State, as
well as mapping various public-access lands that are in private hands. I do
try to map access in places where it's complicated. Some of these lands are
managed for forestry - and I have no tag available to indicate this.
Neither 'natural=wood' nor 'landuse=forest' appear to mean anything more
than 'shade this area green on the map, and draw trees on it.'

If this discussion reaches some sort of rough consensus, I'm certainly
willing to do mechanical edits updating the few thousand areas that I
imported. (Mechanical edits to correct systematic errors in imported data
are, as I understand it, acceptable.) I'm not very happy with the use of
those imports as evidence of 'this is tagging practice' - the current
import is more 'least worst' tagging that will remain consistent with
current rendering and with imports in neighbouring states. I'm NOT willing
to retag with mechanical edits if the price of the retagging will be that
the State Forests, Wildlife Management Areas, Watershed Recreation Areas,
and so on will disappear from the main map.

What I want:

Showing that land is treed ('natural=wood' or the proposed
'landcover=trees') is easy enough. 'landuse=forest' appears to be
synonymous with both 'natural=wood' and 'landcover=trees' and so isn't
useful to me, although I've tried consistently to use it to indicate
designated land use and not landcover. The result has been rendering gaffes
where trees are overlaid on water - but they don't bother me excessively,
since most of those ponds will have trees again in a few decades, as human
and beaver remodeling of the land shifts elsewhere.

'landuse=forest' to designate landcover is unworkable. As Warin said in an
earlier post, a piece of land has one use. (I oversimplify; land may have
secondary uses, for example, land managed for forestry with public
recreation as a secondary objective, but NEITHER of those implies that a
particular square metre is or is not tree-covered.) An object like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/175474 is an example. The land USE
is, correctly, military - the land is used, for instance, for live fire
exercises. The land COVER for large parts of the Academy is trees - what an
ecologist would call 'temperate mixed forest'.

That treed land cover is contiguous with Bear Mountain/Harriman State Park
(which should be boundary=national_park, but that's a different argument),
Black Rock Forest (private land open to public outside certain seasons),
Storm King State Park (managed, effectively, as leisure=nature_reserve),
Storm King Art Center (amenity=museum - an outdoor sculpture gallery in a
partly-wooded setting), and various private holdings (where I'm not trying
to tag land use).

So, what I'm after is: some tag that I can use for something like the
International Paper tract in the Adirondacks (not mapped because (a) I
haven't got to it, and (b) the tagging would be just too controversial). It
is owned by a private common-stock corporation. It is managed to grow trees
for paper (as you might imagine). It is ordinarily open to the public to
hike, ski, snowshoe, and so on except in areas where active logging or
reforestation is in progress. Several public trails traverse it. It is not
a nature reserve of any sort. It is private forest land. (I 

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 12:59 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

>
> https://www.klonblog.com/architektur-ein-schickes-und-
> gemuetliches-haus-im-wald/
>
>
> I see no images, also after disabling ad blocker.
>
>

a pity, because it seems they have even a tree growing through the house



>
>
> https://www.ecowoman.de/images/stories/Natur_und_Umwelt/Le%20vents%20de%
> 20forets%201%20678.jpg
>
> I see no landuse=residential here (though there is building=residential).
>


sorry?



>
>
> https://pictures.immobilienscout24.de/listings/1ddb81ae-d508-4159-ba88-
> 7d0dda53e696-1130797434.jpg/ORIG/resize/1024x768%3E/format/jpg/quality/80
>
> This may qualify, though it is debatable.
>
>
>

yes, everything is debatable.



> Overall, I think that this situation is really rare.
>


yes, it is rare, but as we are mapping the whole world, it is sure that we
will encounter it.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 13/06/18 19:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2018-06-13 11:44 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny >:


13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com
:

2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>:

Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag
(rarely done for obvious reasons) and

what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is owned by
the public or privately owned?


Complicated and boring to survey, limited usefulness of this
information.


the usefulness of knowing the land ownership depends on the jurisdiction.



The amount of time and effort in obtaining the information may be beyond 
the mappers tolerance.
The may want to map other things with that time that they see as much 
more important and usefull to them.
If the name ends with "State Forest" you know who operates it, it is 
ultimately the State Government .


Access to state owned forestry areas is normally public.
Closed or at least restricted when logging or there is a special event 
on - like a car rally.
These things are generally understood, infrequent and so not normally 
mapped. These exceptions are what OSM does not cater for well.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

Would this qualify?
https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Veluwe/@52.2191306,5.8688533,1379m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c7c9d88ad308b5:0x3d1880bfd62acc1f!8m2!3d52.2387683!4d5.8322737

2018-06-13 12:59 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 13. Jun 2018 11:58 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> 2018-06-13 11:49 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>>
>> Can you give an example photo of something that would be correctly  tagged
>>
>> landuse=residential and is in "true" forest?
>>
>
> https://www.klett.de/sixcms/media.php/klett72.a.427.de/
> upload/orang_asli_dorf.jpg
>
>
> I see landuse=residential (or =farmyard) within landuse=forest with no
> overlap.
>
>
>
> https://alleideen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/kleineres-Haus-vorteile-
> exterior-wald-470x390.jpg
>
>
> To cropped to say anything.
>
>
> https://d2gg9evh47fn9z.cloudfront.net/800px_COLOURBOX2241126.jpg
>
>
> Looks like landuse=residential within landuse=forest with no overlap,
>
> but it is strongly cropped.
>
>
>
> https://www.klonblog.com/architektur-ein-schickes-und-
> gemuetliches-haus-im-wald/
>
>
> I see no images, also after disabling ad blocker.
>
>
>
> https://www.ecowoman.de/images/stories/Natur_und_Umwelt/Le%20vents%20de%
> 20forets%201%20678.jpg
>
>
> I see no landuse=residential here (though there is building=residential).
>
>
>
> https://pictures.immobilienscout24.de/listings/1ddb81ae-d508-4159-ba88-
> 7d0dda53e696-1130797434.jpg/ORIG/resize/1024x768%3E/format/jpg/quality/80
>
>
> This may qualify, though it is debatable.
>
>
> Overall, I think that this situation is really rare.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 11:58 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :


> 2018-06-13 11:49 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > >:
>
>>   
>>
>> Can you give an example photo of something that would be correctly  tagged
>>
>> landuse=residential and is in "true" forest?
>>
>>   
>
> https://www.klett.de/sixcms/media.php/klett72.a.427.de/upload/orang_asli_dorf.jpg
>  
> 




I see landuse=residential (or =farmyard) within landuse=forest with no overlap.


 

> https://alleideen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/kleineres-Haus-vorteile-exterior-wald-470x390.jpg
>  
> 




To cropped to say anything.

 


> https://d2gg9evh47fn9z.cloudfront.net/800px_COLOURBOX2241126.jpg 
> 




Looks like landuse=residential within landuse=forest with no overlap,

but it is strongly cropped.

 

> https://www.klonblog.com/architektur-ein-schickes-und-gemuetliches-haus-im-wald/
>  
> 




I see no images, also after disabling ad blocker.


 

> https://www.ecowoman.de/images/stories/Natur_und_Umwelt/Le%20vents%20de%20forets%201%20678.jpg
>  
> 




I see no landuse=residential here (though there is building=residential).


 

> https://pictures.immobilienscout24.de/listings/1ddb81ae-d508-4159-ba88-7d0dda53e696-1130797434.jpg/ORIG/resize/1024x768%3E/format/jpg/quality/80
>  
> 




This may qualify, though it is debatable.




Overall, I think that this situation is really rare.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[osm.tagging]

From: Mateusz Konieczny  
Sent: Wednesday, 13 June 2018 19:49
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Cc: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

 

13. Jun 2018 11:36 by marc.ge...@gmail.com <mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com> :

And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any place 
where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*.

And that is why landuse=grass is used to map landcover - not land use.

 

https://i.chzbgr.com/full/9175618304/hD5996842/

 

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

and from "maintained or managed woodland", to any group of trees,
because after all, trees on a community square, in a park and in a
garden are managed as well. At least that is an argument I have heard
before.
As soon as you start representing trees in a garden as landuse=forest
only because the trees are maintained, don't you drop the woodland
part (and thus landuse) and start using the tag as a landcover ?
Aren't you mapping for the renderer then ?

m
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:18 PM Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 13 June 2018, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > > And landuse=forest is used for landcover, not landuse, so such
> > > mapping is correct.
> >
> > As I see it, it evolved from mapping areas where wood is used for
> > timber into a landcover tag. The first person that used it for
> > landcover purpose have mapped for the renderer imho. Others followed
> > and now people state it is a landcover tag.
>
> Not really following the overall discussion here any more but trying to
> scuttle the attempt at rewriting history:
>
> The early use of landuse=forest/natural=wood was more or less like
> Approach 3 on
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest
>
> See:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landuse%3Dforest=200189
>
> in particular the section 'Attention'.
>
> --
> 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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 13 June 2018, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > And landuse=forest is used for landcover, not landuse, so such
> > mapping is correct.
>
> As I see it, it evolved from mapping areas where wood is used for
> timber into a landcover tag. The first person that used it for
> landcover purpose have mapped for the renderer imho. Others followed
> and now people state it is a landcover tag.

Not really following the overall discussion here any more but trying to 
scuttle the attempt at rewriting history:

The early use of landuse=forest/natural=wood was more or less like 
Approach 3 on

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest

See:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landuse%3Dforest=200189

in particular the section 'Attention'.  

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

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

landcover=* has reached a significant usage despite not being rendered on
OSM Carto, nor supported by tools.  It does not require big changes to
existing data or schemes to add rendering of landcover=trees|scrub|grass.
Technically I have not seen any problems to render this, particularly since
it's not new rendering, it's using existing rendering.

I would suggest, for now, just to start rendering of the existing landcover
tagging, without any other change to schemes, principals or whatever. There
is no conflict with exiating usage and schemes, just an extra.

If it doesn't take hold, so be it. But I think the signs are there that it
fulfils a widely (though not universally) felt wish and will help to reduce
controversy about the logic of tagging wood and grass. If so, we will see a
steady increase in usage of landcover tagging and a gradual decrease in
non-natural naturals and non-landuse landuses.


2018-06-13 11:51 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

> >
> > And landuse=forest is used for landcover, not landuse, so such mapping
> is correct.
>
> As I see it, it evolved from mapping areas where wood is used for
> timber into a landcover tag. The first person that used it for
> landcover purpose have mapped for the renderer imho. Others followed
> and now people state it is a landcover tag.
>
> m.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 11:52 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 13. Jun 2018 11:24 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> What about the distinction "forest" and "wood"? Is a wood smaller and a
> forest denser?
>
>
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest for the current situation,
> adding one more
>
> contradictory tagging scheme is not going to help.
>

this was not meant to be about landuse=forest and natural=wood, it was
about the meaning of the English terms "wood" and "forest". There is not
contradiction.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 11:49 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 13. Jun 2018 11:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> 2018-06-13 11:42 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>>
>> I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not
>> help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster.
>>
>> Exclude landuse=residential areas.
>>
>
> there are residential plots in actual, "true" forests though.
>
>
> Can you give an example photo of something that would be correctly  tagged
>
> landuse=residential and is in "true" forest?
>

https://www.klett.de/sixcms/media.php/klett72.a.427.de/upload/orang_asli_dorf.jpg
https://alleideen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/kleineres-Haus-vorteile-exterior-wald-470x390.jpg
https://d2gg9evh47fn9z.cloudfront.net/800px_COLOURBOX2241126.jpg
https://www.klonblog.com/architektur-ein-schickes-und-gemuetliches-haus-im-wald/
https://www.ecowoman.de/images/stories/Natur_und_Umwelt/Le%20vents%20de%20forets%201%20678.jpg
https://pictures.immobilienscout24.de/listings/1ddb81ae-d508-4159-ba88-7d0dda53e696-1130797434.jpg/ORIG/resize/1024x768%3E/format/jpg/quality/80
etc.etc.
there are thousands...

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

>
> And landuse=forest is used for landcover, not landuse, so such mapping is 
> correct.

As I see it, it evolved from mapping areas where wood is used for
timber into a landcover tag. The first person that used it for
landcover purpose have mapped for the renderer imho. Others followed
and now people state it is a landcover tag.

m.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 11:48 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 13. Jun 2018 11:36 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:
>
> And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any
> place where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*.
>
>
> And that is why landuse=grass is used to map landcover - not land use.
>


and this is why we are having this discussion here for the nth time.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 11:24 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :
>
> What about the distinction "forest" and "wood"? Is a wood smaller and a 
> forest denser?




See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest 
 for the current situation, adding 
one more

contradictory tagging scheme is not going to help. 

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 11:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :


> 2018-06-13 11:42 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > >:
>
>>   
>>
>>> I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not
>>> help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Exclude landuse=residential areas.
>>
>
>
> there are residential plots in actual, "true" forests though.




Can you give an example photo of something that would be correctly  tagged

landuse=residential and is in "true" forest?

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

After looking over a lot of green areas in and around a few cities, I think
some way of recording mixed landcovers, particularly grass and
scrub, would be nice2have. A field of grass with a few trees is
*=grass, an area of trees with grass underneath is *=trees, but in between
a many areas of grass and/or scrub(s) with say 30-70% trees. Generally,
from the air you would say it's all trees, while on the ground it's mainly
grass with a lot of dark columns carrying a green roof blocking the sun.



2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> 2018-06-13 11:31 GMT+02:00 :
>
>> Landuse describes how the land is used.
>>
>>
>>
>> residential, industrial, commercial, retail, military, farmland,
>> forestry, ...
>>
>>
>>
>> None of these have a fixed implication of what's on the land.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Landcover describes what's on the land.
>>
>>
>>
>> grass, scrub, trees, concrete, ...
>>
>>
>>
>> None of these have a fixed implication if the landcover is natural or man
>> made or managed.
>>
>
>
> +1, that's also what I would find intuitive.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Any point on the map has one actual landuse and one actual landcover.
>>
>
>
>
> every point will have a landcover, but not every point will have landuse.
> Only used land has landuse. E.g. on antarctica (or in deserts) you will not
> have any use for most of the land.
>
>
>
>
>> And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any
>> place where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*.
>>
>
>
> +1
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 11:44 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> 2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>> Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag (rarely done for
>> obvious reasons) and
>>
> what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is owned by the public
> or privately owned?
>
>
> Complicated and boring to survey, limited usefulness of this information.
>

the usefulness of knowing the land ownership depends on the jurisdiction.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Colin Smale]

Why not map objective attributes, such as trees per hectare, species,
maybe natural vs managed? If the set of attributes is chosen well, then
people will be able to apply their own criteria as to what is an
"orchard" or a "forest" when consuming the data. After all, OSM is the
data, not the rendered map. 

We (a small number of people anyway, on behalf of the whole of OSM, most
of whom are unaware that this discussion is even taking place) are once
again spending a lot of energy trying to get global consensus on the
names people use to call these things, in a language which is not native
to the majority of participants. That seems pretty unachievable to me,
without a solid frame of reference. When the discussion dies down, it
won't be because there is real consensus, just that people have got
bored of the discussion and gone off to do more productive things with
their lives. Until the same subject flares up again at some point in the
future, then it all starts again.

On 2018-06-13 11:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> btw., we have only been discussing the term forest for landcover=trees, but 
> there are other places where trees grow, e.g. orchards, groves, copses, 
> bosks, thickets. We do have orchard as a tag, but we do not have anything 
> specific for copses and groves (some might be mapped as orchards?). Thickets 
> are generally mapped as natural=scrub? Bosk is a synonymon for grove? 
> 
> What about the distinction "forest" and "wood"? Is a wood smaller and a 
> forest denser? 
> 
> Cheers, 
> Martin 
> 
> ___
> 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] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 11:36 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any place 
> where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*.
>




And that is why landuse=grass is used to map landcover - not land use.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 11:40 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> using landuse=forest to mark any area with trees is mapping for
> the renderer (and apparently accepted by a part of the community),
> hence the derogatory term.
>



mapping for the rendereris for deliberately mapping incorrect data
And landuse=forest is used for landcover, not landuse, so such mapping is 
correct.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 11:42 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

>
> I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not
> help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster.
>
>
> Exclude landuse=residential areas.
>


there are residential plots in actual, "true" forests though.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:43 AM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 13. Jun 2018 10:31 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:
>
> I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not
> help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster.
>
>
> Exclude landuse=residential areas.
>
>
> So my current idea is to create
>
>
> (landuse=forest + natural=wood) - landuse=residential
>
>
> and calculate its area.

ok, thanks, pretty complex. Would be way easier with landcover = forest :-)

>
> and whether you think it's OK to have overlapping
> landuse
>
>
>  It is certainly OK to have overlapping areas with landuse=residential 
> (records landuse)
>
> and landuse=forest (records landcover).

unless landuse=forest does not overlap any other landuse in which
cases it might be a landuse (depending on who mapped it), not ?

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :


> 2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > >:
>
>>   
>> Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag (rarely done for 
>> obvious reasons) and
>>
> what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is owned by the public or 
> privately owned?




Complicated and boring to survey, limited usefulness of this information.




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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag (rarely done for
> obvious reasons) and
>


what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is owned by the public
or privately owned?



> access in access tag (very rarely done for objects like forests, including
> forests with restricted entry).
>

I think it is not done because people think it is obvious (which might be
true, but only locally / within a given jurisdiction), but it would be
interesting to record it IMHO. E.g. some forests are private, but in
Germany this doesn't imply you cannot enter them. Sometimes, you are
allowed to walk in the forest, sometimes you may do so but only when
keeping on the ways, etc.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 10:31 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not
> help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster.




Exclude landuse=residential areas.




So my current idea is to create




(landuse=forest + natural=wood) - landuse=residential




and calculate its area.





> And again you have not answered my questions on how to map named
> forests with lakes




I have no idea how to do that, lakes are just a start. There are forests split

because leaf_type or some other property changes but entire area has name.





Real fun starts where one

has forest (or park) where parts of named area has their own names.





It is on my (long) OSM TODO list to invent useful tagging for that.


 


>  and whether you think it's OK to have overlapping
> landuse




 It is certainly OK to have overlapping areas with landuse=residential (records 
landuse)


and landuse=forest (records landcover).

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
>
>
> 13. Jun 2018 10:34 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:
>
> which is "colouring" the map.
>
>
> I am not sure is it intention, but it sounds like attempt to
>
> find a derogatory term for landcover mapping.

I would not use that term if you use landcover for this purpose. For
me, using landuse=forest to mark any area with trees is mapping for
the renderer (and apparently accepted by a part of the community),
hence the derogatory term.

m.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

totally agree with that.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:32 AM  wrote:
>
> For me, the situation (as it should be, not as it is) is pretty clear.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Landuse describes how the land is used.
>
>
>
> residential, industrial, commercial, retail, military, farmland, forestry, ...
>
>
>
> None of these have a fixed implication of what's on the land.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Landcover describes what's on the land.
>
>
>
> grass, scrub, trees, concrete, ...
>
>
>
> None of these have a fixed implication if the landcover is natural or man 
> made or managed.
>
>
>
>
>
> Any point on the map has one actual landuse and one actual landcover.
>
>
>
>
>
> You can have an area tagged as landuse=forestry and inside that area (or 
> partially overlapping it) you have a mix of areas with landcover trees, 
> grass, scrub, rock, whatever.
>
>
>
>
>
> If you have some trees in a backyard, that's landcover=trees in 
> landuse=residential.
>
>
>
>
>
> If you have a forest that's just been completely logged and is just starting 
> to regrow, that's landuse=forestry, landcover=scrub (probably, I'm sure 
> someone can come up with a proper sequence of landcovers for an area that 
> goes from trees to stumps and back to trees).
>
>
>
>
>
> That landuse=forestry is what landuse=forest should be, but it has been 
> completely burned by misuse to paint the map green and there is no way to 
> recover from that really.
>
>
>
> And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any place 
> where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*.
>
>
>
> If you are growing grass for animals, that's farmland or meadow. If you are 
> growing it because you want to sell it as rollout grassm that's farmland.
>
>
>
> If it's beside a road, that's either landuse=highway (if it's still part of 
> the public right of way) or part of whatever landuse (residential, 
> commercial, ...) describes the area outside the road.
>
>
>
> If it's "municipal greenery" it's probably either landuse=highway (if it's 
> still part of the public right of way) or landuse=recreation_ground.
>
>
>
> No matter what, *grass* is not a land*use*. It's what happens to *cover* the 
> land to fullfil some other *use*.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 June 2018 19:24
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag
>
>
>
> btw., we have only been discussing the term forest for landcover=trees, but 
> there are other places where trees grow, e.g. orchards, groves, copses, 
> bosks, thickets. We do have orchard as a tag, but we do not have anything 
> specific for copses and groves (some might be mapped as orchards?). Thickets 
> are generally mapped as natural=scrub? Bosk is a synonymon for grove?
>
>
>
> What about the distinction "forest" and "wood"? Is a wood smaller and a 
> forest denser?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

Take a look at e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/913806#map=17/51.12071/4.09282=N
You will see plenty of houses surrounded by landuse=forest. This is
because there are plenty of trees in the gardens near the house
(probably the area was a forest before).
The current mapping is not correct. There are gardens, driveways,
grassfields near the houses. However there are still patches with
trees left.

My idea was to map the whole area as landuse=residential and the areas
covered with trees as landcover=trees.
But some people here say that you should map those trees with
landuse=forest. So should those lu=forest overlap the lu=residential ?

Similar problems exists where there is e.g. a meadow with several
trees on it (too many trees to map individually), but still the
purpose is meadow (e.g. because there are horses).
Do you draw a meadow and on top of it a lu=forest ?


As for the named area, I understand your reply as : you have a
separate object (perhaps the outer ring of the mult-polygon) with the
name tag (so any area excluded by the inner rings are still within
that named area). Any other tags you place on that outer ring
(place=locality perhaps ?)

m.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:47 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>
> 2018-06-13 9:44 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :
>>
>>
>> * trees in gardens or in a meadow or any other area whose primary
>> function is not "trees" ( (using overlapping landuse ?)
>
>
>
> can you please rephrase this? It is not clear what you are asking.
>
>
>>
>> * where the name of the forest has to be placed when one uses a
>> multi-polygon to exclude ponds from the tree covered areas.
>
>
>
> names always have to apply to the area or position where they apply to in the 
> real world ;-)
> Whether to include or exclude areas from the named area depends on your 
> interpretation of the world, there is no standard answer to this, you have to 
> judge the actual situation. Generally I believe it would be safer to add 
> names to "name objects" like place if there is no other well defined area 
> like nature_reserve. Otherwise you will get into trouble when micromapping 
> (e.g. splitting a forest would mean creating 2 forests).
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> 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] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 11:31 GMT+02:00 :

> Landuse describes how the land is used.
>
>
>
> residential, industrial, commercial, retail, military, farmland, forestry,
> ...
>
>
>
> None of these have a fixed implication of what's on the land.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Landcover describes what's on the land.
>
>
>
> grass, scrub, trees, concrete, ...
>
>
>
> None of these have a fixed implication if the landcover is natural or man
> made or managed.
>


+1, that's also what I would find intuitive.



>
>
>
>
> Any point on the map has one actual landuse and one actual landcover.
>



every point will have a landcover, but not every point will have landuse.
Only used land has landuse. E.g. on antarctica (or in deserts) you will not
have any use for most of the land.




> And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any
> place where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*.
>


+1


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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 10:34 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :


> 2018-06-13 9:20 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > >:
>
>>   
>>> A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
>>> private backyard.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So you want to count tree-covered areas that are not private? (including 
>> ones in private backyards).
>>
>
>
> the question of ownership and the orthogonal question of accessibility should 
> not be mixed with the question whether an area is a forest or not. Different 
> properties (at least for me), and depending on culture and jurisdiction.
>




Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag (rarely done for obvious 
reasons) and

access in access tag (very rarely done for objects like forests, including 
forests with restricted entry).

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 10:34 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> which is "colouring" the map. 




I am not sure is it intention, but it sounds like attempt to

find a derogatory term for landcover mapping.





 


> But do you have
> suggestions for people that do want to record something more ?
>




Introduce a new tag, not conflicting with other tags and not duplicating

other tags to tag what they want to map.




It is hard to say more without a clear description what someone wants to map.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[osm.tagging]

For me, the situation (as it should be, not as it is) is pretty clear.

 

 

 

Landuse describes how the land is used. 

 

residential, industrial, commercial, retail, military, farmland, forestry, ...

 

None of these have a fixed implication of what's on the land.

 

 

 

Landcover describes what's on the land.

 

grass, scrub, trees, concrete, ...

 

None of these have a fixed implication if the landcover is natural or man made 
or managed.

 

 

Any point on the map has one actual landuse and one actual landcover.

 

 

You can have an area tagged as landuse=forestry and inside that area (or 
partially overlapping it) you have a mix of areas with landcover trees, grass, 
scrub, rock, whatever.

 

 

If you have some trees in a backyard, that's landcover=trees in 
landuse=residential.

 

 

If you have a forest that's just been completely logged and is just starting to 
regrow, that's landuse=forestry, landcover=scrub (probably, I'm sure someone 
can come up with a proper sequence of landcovers for an area that goes from 
trees to stumps and back to trees).

 

 

That landuse=forestry is what landuse=forest should be, but it has been 
completely burned by misuse to paint the map green and there is no way to 
recover from that really.

 

And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any place 
where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*. 

 

If you are growing grass for animals, that's farmland or meadow. If you are 
growing it because you want to sell it as rollout grassm that's farmland. 

 

If it's beside a road, that's either landuse=highway (if it's still part of the 
public right of way) or part of whatever landuse (residential, commercial, ...) 
describes the area outside the road.

 

If it's "municipal greenery" it's probably either landuse=highway (if it's 
still part of the public right of way) or landuse=recreation_ground.

 

No matter what, *grass* is not a land*use*. It's what happens to *cover* the 
land to fullfil some other *use*.

 

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer  
Sent: Wednesday, 13 June 2018 19:24
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

 

btw., we have only been discussing the term forest for landcover=trees, but 
there are other places where trees grow, e.g. orchards, groves, copses, bosks, 
thickets. We do have orchard as a tag, but we do not have anything specific for 
copses and groves (some might be mapped as orchards?). Thickets are generally 
mapped as natural=scrub? Bosk is a synonymon for grove?

 

What about the distinction "forest" and "wood"? Is a wood smaller and a forest 
denser?

 

Cheers,

Martin

 

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

btw., we have only been discussing the term forest for landcover=trees, but
there are other places where trees grow, e.g. orchards, groves, copses,
bosks, thickets. We do have orchard as a tag, but we do not have anything
specific for copses and groves (some might be mapped as orchards?).
Thickets are generally mapped as natural=scrub? Bosk is a synonymon for
grove?

What about the distinction "forest" and "wood"? Is a wood smaller and a
forest denser?

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 13/06/18 18:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2018-06-13 9:44 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis >:



* trees in gardens or in a meadow or any other area whose primary
function is not "trees" ( (using overlapping landuse ?)



can you please rephrase this? It is not clear what you are asking.


There is large area that are used by the military here. Some of that 
area is coved in trees.

Way: Holsworthy Military Reserve (374783780)
  Tags:
    "landuse"="military"
    "name"="Holsworthy Military Reserve"
    "access"="private"
Relation: 1542927
  Tags:
    "natural"="wood"
    "type"="multipolygon"

The wood multipolygon has inners to exclude areas that are not trees.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 9:44 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

>
> * trees in gardens or in a meadow or any other area whose primary
> function is not "trees" ( (using overlapping landuse ?)
>


can you please rephrase this? It is not clear what you are asking.



> * where the name of the forest has to be placed when one uses a
> multi-polygon to exclude ponds from the tree covered areas.
>


names always have to apply to the area or position where they apply to in
the real world ;-)
Whether to include or exclude areas from the named area depends on your
interpretation of the world, there is no standard answer to this, you have
to judge the actual situation. Generally I believe it would be safer to add
names to "name objects" like place if there is no other well defined area
like nature_reserve. Otherwise you will get into trouble when micromapping
(e.g. splitting a forest would mean creating 2 forests).

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 13/06/18 17:23, Marc Gemis wrote:


On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:15 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

won't work, see e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932=N
that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it.

Exclude area with landuse=residential ??


but what if you want to map the presence of trees. I would do that
with landcover=trees.


Me too...however I was responding to the request of excluding things not 
matching a specific requirement of lager areas of 'forests'. Whatever that 
means.


But those using landuse=forest will have to overlap it on
landuse=residential. As I see it, landuse=forest on top another
landuse still means the "other" landuse but with some trees on it.
landuse=forest not overlapping any other landuse means "forest", and
e.g. a small landuse=retail overlapping on landuse=residential means
retail (at least that is how carto-css present things now).



No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods

If everything was "properly" mapped with those 3 tags I could come up
with an algorithm. Not with the current mess of course.

Proper? Who says what is proper?

Proper for me means clearly separate landuse from landcover, so that
one can see the use of the land and how it is covered from different
tags.
Not proper is e.g. one mapper using landuse=forest to indicate an area
for timber production and another mapper to map trees in a private
residential garden.
The latter mapping is fine if you just want to colour a map. :-)


Yes.

One suggestion is that the present use of landcover to specify a land cover 
continues and that the land use of trees be yet another tag.

Another suggestion is the provision of two tags - one taking one of mapping 
trees the other of mapping timber production.

I prefer option 2 as then both sides have equal amounts of trouble ... :)

-
If 'proper' would mean that the tags were defined in such a way as to exclude 
another use then that would be good.
Start at one end and work towards the other? Would the start be at 'landuse' or 
at the values 'grass' and 'forest'? :)
Good luck ... too many people stuck with what we have now, and while that 
remains the mess will continue.





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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 9:23 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

>
> Not proper is e.g. one mapper using landuse=forest to indicate an area
> for timber production and another mapper to map trees in a private
> residential garden.
> The latter mapping is fine if you just want to colour a map. :-)
>


the latter mapping is also fine if you are only interested to know where
trees grow (size is implicit anyway). "to colour a map" is belittleing the
value of micromapping tree covered areas.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

>
> Or if you wish to record landcover without intention of (in this case) to map
>
> landuse.

which is "colouring" the map. I understand that you do not care about
anything else than the presence of trees. Fine. But do you have
suggestions for people that do want to record something more ?
(Building on your landuse=forest for any groups of trees.)

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 9:20 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
> private backyard.
>
>
> So you want to count tree-covered areas that are not private? (including
> ones in private backyards).
>


the question of ownership and the orthogonal question of accessibility
should not be mixed with the question whether an area is a forest or not.
Different properties (at least for me), and depending on culture and
jurisdiction.


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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

> Private vs. public does not matter.
> Private gardens with some trees in it are not a forest.
> A tree row in a field is not a forest for me.
>
> According to Wikipedia [1] there are hundreds of different definitions
> of forest. Not only that, some people are only interested in mapping
> "groups of trees" so the map is nicely coloured.
> For me, a forest is more than just a group of trees. I don't have a
> ready to use definition so there are many grey areas left. But think
> about a park but with less human shaped areas (grass, ponds, benches,
> waste bins), but still maintained by humans. It includes trees but can
> also include bushes, plants, flowers, grass, ponds, streams and
> paths/roads. Typically the paths are not as well maintained as in
> parks. Please note that is how I see parks/forests in Belgium, other
> countries can have different definitions.
>
>
> Note that you look for a specific kind of forests.
>
>
> For example there are forests that are
>
>
> - logging oriented (with no paths and tracks usable only by heavy machinery)
>
> - nature reserves, with no entry allowed
>
> - private forests, with entry controlled by owner
>
> - and many more cases.
>

I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not
help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster.
And again you have not answered my questions on how to map named
forests with lakes and whether you think it's OK to have overlapping
landuse, those are more important than defining my vague definition of
forest.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-12 14:59 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :

> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I didn't want to quibble and am seriously trying to understand you. To
>> me, a "group of trees" means a few trees, say starting from 3 to maybe 20
>> or maybe even 50 on the extreme end, usually something lower than 10.
>>
>
> A group is an unspecified, and possibly indeterminate, number.  You're
> thinking of small groups. :)
>
>

yes, a group is generally an unspecified number, but context gives an
indication of the dimension. If you talk about a "group of trees", it is
IMHO a description of trees that are not in a forest, or are a very small
part of trees with specific characterstics in a forest. A whole forest will
not be referred to in natural language or have "forest" in the name (what
you were writing about).

While there is some uncertainty about the definition of what does
constitute a "forest", it is often clear for few trees that they are _not_.
A forest means more than trees, it means microclimate, soil structure,
habitat. There is a minimum size for an area with trees which is required
to form a microclimate, if there are too few, a forest will not form.

A group of trees is something like this:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hergisdorf,_a_group_of_trees_western_of_the_village.jpg
https://pixabay.com/en/trees-group-nature-mood-1548338/
https://jooinn.com/group-of-trees.html#gal_post_89850_group-of-trees-4.jpg
etc.

This is not a group of trees:
http://www.ostbayern-tourismus.de/extension/portal-ostbayern/var/storage/images/media/bilder/landschaft-und-regionen/bayerischer-wald-1/46849-1-ger-DE/Bayerischer-Wald-1_front_magnific.jpg
it is a forest.



> Come up with a better term if you think it necessary.  I was trying to
> convey that this was a tag that applied to
> anything from a copse to a forest.
>


yes, the tag is applied to any kind of area with trees, but the word
"forest" is not.




> What we're trying to come up with a suitable name for is a tag to use
> when trees are too closely spaced *or trees which are not closely spaced
> but cover a very large area) that
> tagging individual trees would be far too much effort.
>


we actually do have a tag for this, we even have 3. ;-)

What we are lacking is a way to tell that a nature reserve is mainly about
a forest (e.g. a national forest), even if/although not all of the area is
covered by trees. Right now you can only see this from the name, if you
understand the language.



> ...  The tag landuse=forest is documented about marking areas where trees
> are grown
> to be logged, and which are periodically cut down,
>



Although after a lot of modifications, the wiki is less clear than ever,
there is no requirement of "logging" or periodically cutting down on the
relevant wiki pages. The tag definition page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforest states:
"Forest. Sometimes considered to have restricted meaning "Managed woodland
or woodland plantation". "
and
"*Managed woodland* or woodland plantation. There are major differences in
the way this tag & natural 
=wood  are used by
some Openstreetmap users. Some use this tag for land primarily managed for
timber production, others uses if for woodland that is in some way
maintained by humans, some for any forest. This problem is explained in the
page *Forest *."


i.e. the wiki states the requirement for landuse=forest to be about a
forest, but links to another page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest
which reduces the requirements:
"A *forest* or *woodland* is an area covered by trees. Two different tags
are used to describe this: natural
=wood
 and landuse
=forest
. There are major
differences in the way these are used by some OpenStreetMap mappers.
Situation is complicated as different people advocate different,
conflicting tagging schemes. Depending on region there may or may not be
difference between areas tagged as natural
=wood
 and landuse
=forest
. Difference, if
any, depends on who mapped the area. As result nearly all data consumers
treat both natural =wood
 and landuse
=forest
 as synonymous
tags for a forested area."






inside the 

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 08/06/18 08:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
& it's an impossible question to answer, but how many of those 3.5 
million tags are on "areas of land managed for forestry"? :-) t be the sa


From a random look around .. about half.

There is yet another tag that has a fair amount of use ... landuse=logging.
I thing this might be landuse=forestry but in the harvesting stage.
I am yet to look at the age of these areas existence, I suspect they are 
older than the time taken for trees to start growing and should be 
landuse=forestry.
Mainly in central Russia (or what ever it is called nowerdays, sorry) 
and western Europe.
Is it too late to stop this .. probably. It may well be the new 
landuse=forestry! Well intended to separate it out from anyone thinking 
of 'just trees'?




Thanks

Graeme

On 8 June 2018 at 08:11, Andy Townsend > wrote:


On 07/06/18 23:00, Peter Elderson wrote:

I think landuse=forest should remain intact, for cases where
forestry is actually how the land is used.
So the tag is not deprecated, it's just applicated more
consistently.


So you're proposing to change the meaning of a tag that has 3.5
million uses?

I'm sure that you have only the best of intentions, but, er, good
luck with that :)


Yep.
I too am of the opinion that landuse=forest is not a tag for future use, 
the meaning is taken 2 ways.

Much better to have 2 tags available for use of each meaning.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 09:23 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> Proper for me means clearly separate landuse from landcover, so that
> one can see the use of the land and how it is covered from different
> tags.
> Not proper is e.g. one mapper using landuse=forest to indicate an area
> for timber production and another mapper to map trees in a private
> residential garden.
> The latter mapping is fine if you just want to colour a map. :-)
>




Or if you wish to record landcover without intention of (in this case) to map 


landuse.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 09:44 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> Private vs. public does not matter.
> Private gardens with some trees in it are not a forest.
> A tree row in a field is not a forest for me.
>
> According to Wikipedia [1] there are hundreds of different definitions
> of forest. Not only that, some people are only interested in mapping
> "groups of trees" so the map is nicely coloured.
> For me, a forest is more than just a group of trees. I don't have a
> ready to use definition so there are many grey areas left. But think
> about a park but with less human shaped areas (grass, ponds, benches,
> waste bins), but still maintained by humans. It includes trees but can
> also include bushes, plants, flowers, grass, ponds, streams and
> paths/roads. Typically the paths are not as well maintained as in
> parks. Please note that is how I see parks/forests in Belgium, other
> countries can have different definitions.
>




Note that you look for a specific kind of forests. 





For example there are forests that are




- logging oriented (with no paths and tracks usable only by heavy machinery)


- nature reserves, with no entry allowed

- private forests, with entry controlled by owner

- and many more cases.




Excluding private gardens and tree rows would be just a start (though it may

be sufficient in case of Belgium).




> * trees in gardens or in a meadow or any other area whose primary
> function is not "trees" ( (using overlapping landuse ?)




I use landuse=forest in that case (to mark area as covered by trees,

not to record landuse).

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

Private vs. public does not matter.
Private gardens with some trees in it are not a forest.
A tree row in a field is not a forest for me.

According to Wikipedia [1] there are hundreds of different definitions
of forest. Not only that, some people are only interested in mapping
"groups of trees" so the map is nicely coloured.
For me, a forest is more than just a group of trees. I don't have a
ready to use definition so there are many grey areas left. But think
about a park but with less human shaped areas (grass, ponds, benches,
waste bins), but still maintained by humans. It includes trees but can
also include bushes, plants, flowers, grass, ponds, streams and
paths/roads. Typically the paths are not as well maintained as in
parks. Please note that is how I see parks/forests in Belgium, other
countries can have different definitions.

For me, the current data is only fine to see some colour on the map. I
wonder how people that really work with this type of landuse/landcover
data think about the OSM-data. I know about one scientific article
that even recommends OSM for landuse/landcover.(don't have the URL
here).
So perhaps it is not so bad, and it's only my idea of a neatly
structured landuse/landcover separation that finds the data useless
for other purposes.

As to Peter, I have written my rough ideas on landuse/landcover 2
years ago or so on the Belgian mailing list. While there are others
that share the landcover vision, we have not done anything with it.
There are still many open issues:
landuse/landcover/leisure/surface/natural all overlap in some ways.
Even the building tag overlaps with the landcover tag. If you define a
different system, where do you draw the line? What do you want to map
in another way ?
And even if we agree, it would take too long to revisit all place and
redo the armchair work that created the current landuse mapping in
Belgium at this moment.

But I haven't seen any reply on how I should map

* trees in gardens or in a meadow or any other area whose primary
function is not "trees" ( (using overlapping landuse ?)
* where the name of the forest has to be placed when one uses a
multi-polygon to exclude ponds from the tree covered areas.

So Mateusz, Andy, how do you solve those problems ?



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:21 AM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
>
>
> 13. Jun 2018 07:47 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:
>
> won't work, see e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932=N
> that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it.
>
>
> I opened https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1424854 - somebody included also 
> areas
>
> without trees.
>
>
> A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
> private backyard.
>
>
> So you want to count tree-covered areas that are not private? (including ones 
> in private backyards).
>
>
> I think that it is not doable with current OSM data (access=private is 
> extremely rarely
>
> tagged on private areas) though excluding areas tagged also as 
> landuse=residential
>
> may be a good approximation.
>
>
>
> Our government talks often about there is so many square meter of
> forest in Belgium.
> It's not sufficient to subtract all small areas, you need to subtract
> somehow everything that is not a forest (see above)
>
>
> So do you want to exclude private forests or something else?
>
> ___
> 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] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:15 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> won't work, see e.g.
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932=N
>> that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it.
>
> Exclude area with landuse=residential ??


but what if you want to map the presence of trees. I would do that
with landcover=trees.
But those using landuse=forest will have to overlap it on
landuse=residential. As I see it, landuse=forest on top another
landuse still means the "other" landuse but with some trees on it.
landuse=forest not overlapping any other landuse means "forest", and
e.g. a small landuse=retail overlapping on landuse=residential means
retail (at least that is how carto-css present things now).

>> >
>> >
>> > No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods
>>
>> If everything was "properly" mapped with those 3 tags I could come up
>> with an algorithm. Not with the current mess of course.
>
> Proper? Who says what is proper?

Proper for me means clearly separate landuse from landcover, so that
one can see the use of the land and how it is covered from different
tags.
Not proper is e.g. one mapper using landuse=forest to indicate an area
for timber production and another mapper to map trees in a private
residential garden.
The latter mapping is fine if you just want to colour a map. :-)

m

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 07:47 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> won't work, see e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932=N
>  
> 
> that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it.
>




I opened https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1424854 
 - somebody included also areas 


without trees.





> A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
> private backyard.




So you want to count tree-covered areas that are not private? (including ones 
in private backyards).




I think that it is not doable with current OSM data (access=private is 
extremely rarely

tagged on private areas) though excluding areas tagged also as 
landuse=residential

may be a good approximation.


 


> Our government talks often about there is so many square meter of
> forest in Belgium.
> It's not sufficient to subtract all small areas, you need to subtract
> somehow everything that is not a forest (see above)




So do you want to exclude private forests or something else? 

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 13/06/18 16:03, Peter Elderson wrote:
Would it be possible to get the osm-community in Belgium to agree on 
one tagging principle for trees/wood/forest?

And get it done that way?

2018-06-13 7:47 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis >:


On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:57 PM Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 12. Jun 2018 13:22 by marc.ge...@gmail.com
:
>
> How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there
is in
> a country based on OSM-data ?
>
>
> I would start from something like: total area of area covered by
>
> landuse=forest and natural=wood
>
> after excluding very small areas.
>
>

won't work, see e.g.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932=N


that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees
in it.


Exclude area with landuse=residential ??



>
>  Is the data suited for that ?
>
>
> Depends on (a) where (b) what kind of accuracy is needed, forest
in many regions
>
> are unmapped or partially mapped.
>
>
>
> How can I find those places with OSM data ?
>
>
> What you exactly want to find?


A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
private backyard.
Our government talks often about there is so many square meter of
forest in Belgium.
It's not sufficient to subtract all small areas, you need to subtract
somehow everything that is not a forest (see above)

>
>
>
> I thought I had an answer for all the above questions when
> natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees where used "properly".


And you might consider landuse=logging too ...


>
>
> No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods

If everything was "properly" mapped with those 3 tags I could come up
with an algorithm. Not with the current mess of course.


Proper? Who says what is proper?

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

Would it be possible to get the osm-community in Belgium to agree on one
tagging principle for trees/wood/forest?
And get it done that way?

2018-06-13 7:47 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:57 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 12. Jun 2018 13:22 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:
> >
> > How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there is in
> > a country based on OSM-data ?
> >
> >
> > I would start from something like: total area of area covered by
> >
> > landuse=forest and natural=wood
> >
> > after excluding very small areas.
> >
> >
>
> won't work, see e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=
> 16/51.1215/4.0932=N
> that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it.
>
> >
> >  Is the data suited for that ?
> >
> >
> > Depends on (a) where (b) what kind of accuracy is needed, forest in many
> regions
> >
> > are unmapped or partially mapped.
> >
> >
> >
> > How can I find those places with OSM data ?
> >
> >
> > What you exactly want to find?
>
>
> A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
> private backyard.
> Our government talks often about there is so many square meter of
> forest in Belgium.
> It's not sufficient to subtract all small areas, you need to subtract
> somehow everything that is not a forest (see above)
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought I had an answer for all the above questions when
> > natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees where used "properly".
> >
> >
> > No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods
>
> If everything was "properly" mapped with those 3 tags I could come up
> with an algorithm. Not with the current mess of course.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:57 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 12. Jun 2018 13:22 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:
>
> How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there is in
> a country based on OSM-data ?
>
>
> I would start from something like: total area of area covered by
>
> landuse=forest and natural=wood
>
> after excluding very small areas.
>
>

won't work, see e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932=N
that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it.

>
>  Is the data suited for that ?
>
>
> Depends on (a) where (b) what kind of accuracy is needed, forest in many 
> regions
>
> are unmapped or partially mapped.
>
>
>
> How can I find those places with OSM data ?
>
>
> What you exactly want to find?


A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
private backyard.
Our government talks often about there is so many square meter of
forest in Belgium.
It's not sufficient to subtract all small areas, you need to subtract
somehow everything that is not a forest (see above)

>
>
>
> I thought I had an answer for all the above questions when
> natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees where used "properly".
>
>
> No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods

If everything was "properly" mapped with those 3 tags I could come up
with an algorithm. Not with the current mess of course.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 12/06/18 22:59, Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:



I didn't want to quibble and am seriously trying to understand
you. To me, a "group of trees" means a few trees, say starting
from 3 to maybe 20 or maybe even 50 on the extreme end, usually
something lower than 10.


A group is an unspecified, and possibly indeterminate, number.  You're 
thinking of small groups. :)


"That is not a knife"

Relation: 3550886
  Tags:
    "source"="some by handtracing from LIP Imagery July 2017"
    "natural"="wood"
    "type"="multipolygon"
    "landcover"="trees"
  Bounding box: 149.4633291, -34.587523, 150.6471078, -33.5803072
  Bounding box (projected): 1.663818168767947E7, -4107967.4930973584, 
1.676995932977539E7, -3972585.7971908352

  Centre of bounding box: -34.0839151, 150.0552184

Size
North to South 111km
East to West 102 km

It is not a 'regular shape' .. so 11322 sq km is a vast over estimation 
of its area .. say 5,600 sq km is more reasonable ... 1,398,267 acres



Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees.





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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

If a country's community decided to adopt one tagging method of forests,
wood and tree areas, and retagged all existing usage accordingly, more
could be done with (answered by) the data for that country. As it stands, I
don't see that happening in any country any time soon.

Especially natural=wood and landuse=forest are used effectively for the
same purpose. landcover=trees is gaining as an additional tag in the
expectance of (or hope for) future rendering. A lot of landuse=forest gets
landcover=scrub, by the way. When/If landcover is rendered, a lot of small
areas tagged landuse=forest and natural=wood within all kinds of landuses
would become just smaller landcovers over bigger landuse areas.  Then you
would still have the two wood/forest tags with very much overlap in meaning
and exactly the same rendering.



2018-06-12 22:56 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

>
>
>
> 12. Jun 2018 13:22 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:
>
> How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there is in
> a country based on OSM-data ?
>
>
> I would start from something like: total area of area covered by
>
> landuse=forest and natural=wood
>
> after excluding very small areas.
>
>
>
>  Is the data suited for that ?
>
>
> Depends on (a) where (b) what kind of accuracy is needed, forest in many
> regions
>
> are unmapped or partially mapped.
>
>
>
> How can I find those places with OSM data ?
>
>
> What you exactly want to find?
>
>
>
> I thought I had an answer for all the above questions when
> natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees where used "properly".
>
>
> No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods
>
> natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees are effectively synonymous.
>
>
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest for details.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

12. Jun 2018 13:22 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there is in
> a country based on OSM-data ?
>




I would start from something like: total area of area covered by 


landuse=forest and natural=wood 


after excluding very small areas.


 

>  Is the data suited for that ?




Depends on (a) where (b) what kind of accuracy is needed, forest in many regions

are unmapped or partially mapped.





> How can I find those places with OSM data ?
>




What you exactly want to find?


 

> I thought I had an answer for all the above questions when
> natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees where used "properly".




No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods 


natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees are effectively synonymous.




See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest 
 for details.


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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

>
> I didn't want to quibble and am seriously trying to understand you. To me,
> a "group of trees" means a few trees, say starting from 3 to maybe 20 or
> maybe even 50 on the extreme end, usually something lower than 10.
>

A group is an unspecified, and possibly indeterminate, number.  You're
thinking of small groups. :)

Come up with a better term if you think it necessary.  I was trying to
convey that this was a tag that applied to
anything from a copse to a forest.  What we're trying to come up with a
suitable name for is a tag to use
when trees are too closely spaced *or trees which are not closely spaced
but cover a very large area) that
tagging individual trees would be far too much effort.

Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees.
>


I've looked this up, and seems it is like 1.8 sqkm which are the same as
180 hectars. Typically a forest has between 400 and 1000 trees per hectar.
Now 72000 - 18 trees for me are not anywhere near a "group", and I
don't think this is "quibbling". I only asked to be sure about usage of the
term "forest" in names in the UK, as I suppose you are a native, and also
about the term "group".

Again, I was trying to use a word describing anything from a copse to a
forest.  And possibly even a large roundabout near
me which has several trees on it that are too closely-spaced to map
individually.  Mathematically, groups can be infinite
in size, although I don't think we have any forests that large.

indeed, the name belongs to a nature reserve. This is not about landuse or
> landcover, it is about something legally defined.
>

Nope, you've diverted onto a sidetrack.  This was about whether it is
sensible to continue to use landuse=forest both for
unlogged areas/groups/clusters of trees (better as landcover=trees) and for
logged areas/groups/clusters of trees.  There
will be other copses/woods/forests/groups/areas of trees which are not
nature reserves and are not grown for logging.

What we could have and don't have yet, is a systematic approach for nature
> reserves/protected areas about what the name is, e.g. "forest", "lagoon",
> "archipelago", "island", "hills", etc. It wouldn't mean all the area is a
> "forest", it only indicates what the name is about (in a formalized tag in
> English).
>

You're on that sidetrack again.  The tag landuse=forest is documented about
marking areas where trees are grown
to be logged, and which are periodically cut down, yet it is being used for
places like Sherwood Forest which are
largely landcover=trees.  The introduction of landuse=forestry and
deprecation of landuse=forest would help
resolve that.


inside the forest there will usually/often also be areas where landcover is
> not trees, e.g. lakes, meadows, etc., but which are contained in the
> legally protected area. These areas should not be mixed up (IMHO) with
> landcover or landuse, as their boundaries are not depending on each other.
>

Now you appear to have diverted to a sidetrack of your sidetrack.

A protected area may contain areas of trees that are not logged and areas
of water, amongst other things.  Landcover=trees
explains where there are trees not grown for logging better than
landuse=forest (which is supposedly about logging, and
doesn't apply to an area that is called a forest even though it has lakes
in it).

1) Outer area (however we tag it) has name Sherwood Forest.

2) Inside Sherwood Forest are one or more areas tagged landcover=trees and
possibly lakes, streams and meadows.

How we deal with that is (possibly) a different problem.  Right now, it's
about deprecating landuse=forest because it's
being used two different ways.  And we ended up on this massive diversion
because I happened to mention that one
reason people misuse landuse=forest because they encounter groups of trees
that aren't being grown for logging in
an area named (for example) Sherwood Forest.  The mention of Sherwood
Forest was to underline why landuse=forest
is a bad way of tagging things.  The fact that Sherwood Forest is a nature
reserve is a side issue.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-12 11:37 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :

> > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not
>> > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often
>> called "Xyz Forest"
>>
>>
>> interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of trees has
>> actually the name “... forest”? I always thought a forest would require
>> more trees.
>>
>> Either one of us is completely misunderstanding what the other wrote or
> you're quibbling about the size of a group.
>


I didn't want to quibble and am seriously trying to understand you. To me,
a "group of trees" means a few trees, say starting from 3 to maybe 20 or
maybe even 50 on the extreme end, usually something lower than 10.




> Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees.
>


I've looked this up, and seems it is like 1.8 sqkm which are the same as
180 hectars. Typically a forest has between 400 and 1000 trees per hectar.
Now 72000 - 18 trees for me are not anywhere near a "group", and I
don't think this is "quibbling". I only asked to be sure about usage of the
term "forest" in names in the UK, as I suppose you are a native, and also
about the term "group".



> It is a nature reserve and so it is not used for forestry (aka logging).
> There may
> be occasional felling of diseased trees but it is not systematically
> logged on a wide scale.
>


indeed, the name belongs to a nature reserve. This is not about landuse or
landcover, it is about something legally defined. What we could have and
don't have yet, is a systematic approach for nature reserves/protected
areas about what the name is, e.g. "forest", "lagoon", "archipelago",
"island", "hills", etc. It wouldn't mean all the area is a "forest", it
only indicates what the name is about (in a formalized tag in English).



> This is why landuse=forest is problematical.  Sherwood Forest is not land
> used for forestry, but it is called Sherwood
> Forest so landuse=forest may seem like the correct tag to use (because it
> says "forest").
>
> That's why abandoning landuse=forest in favour of landcover=trees or
> landuse=forestry (as appropriate) is a good
> idea.
>



inside the forest there will usually/often also be areas where landcover is
not trees, e.g. lakes, meadows, etc., but which are contained in the
legally protected area. These areas should not be mixed up (IMHO) with
landcover or landuse, as their boundaries are not depending on each other.


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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

While I'm in favour of  the landcover tag, landcover=trees is also not
really true. In most forests areas I know, trees do no occupy all the
space. There is plenty of room for grass, green plants and bushes on
the ground.
In some cases there is no other vegetation and it's just sand (or ground).

So if you use landuse=forest to indicate areas with lot's of trees,
is it then OK the overlap with other landuses ? I'm thinking of trees
in a private garden, trees in a pasture, etc.

Another problem I see are the named forests with lakes inside. Typical
mapping is multi-polygon with landuse=forest + name=xxx on the outer
ring and natural=water on the inner ring. Does this mean that the lake
is no longer part of the forest or just of the area covered with trees
? So is it also no longer part of the area named xxx ? (similar
problems with grass or bushes)

Another thing I do not understand is why we evolved from natural=wood
to landuse=forest and not from natural=heath to landuse=heath. (BTW,
natural=wood is still more popular at the moment than landuse=forest),
especially if you use the argument natural means "no human are
involved". Most heaths (if not all) are only surviving because humans
burns down parts or use sheep and cows to prevent large bushes and
trees from taking over.

How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there is in
a country based on OSM-data ? Is the data suited for that ?
For me a forest is a place where you can do "slow" recreation: hiking,
cycling (typically MTBs), horse riding, though I understand some
forests are purely used for the timber production
How can I find those places with OSM data ?

I thought I had an answer for all the above questions when
natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees where used "properly".
But how do you solve them in world with only "landuse=forest" ?

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:27 PM Peter Elderson  wrote:
>
> For landuse=forest or landuse=forestry I think landcover=trees would be 
> implicit (default), unless another landcover is specified.
>
> I guess which values of landcover should be supported for rendering on OSM 
> Carto is a matter of later discussion. For now I would be happy with grass, 
> trees, scrub, and sand.
>
> 2018-06-12 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> On 12/06/18 19:37, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen  wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not
>>> > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often called 
>>> > "Xyz Forest"
>>>
>>>
>>> interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of trees has 
>>> actually the name “... forest”? I always thought a forest would require 
>>> more trees.
>>>
>> Either one of us is completely misunderstanding what the other wrote or 
>> you're quibbling about the size of a group.
>>
>> Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees.  It is a nature reserve and so it is 
>> not used for forestry (aka logging).  There may
>> be occasional felling of diseased trees but it is not systematically logged 
>> on a wide scale.
>>
>> This is why landuse=forest is problematical.  Sherwood Forest is not land 
>> used for forestry, but it is called Sherwood
>> Forest so landuse=forest may seem like the correct tag to use (because it 
>> says "forest").
>>
>> That's why abandoning landuse=forest in favour of landcover=trees or 
>> landuse=forestry (as appropriate) is a good
>> idea.  I'll also add that I don't think landcover=trees should be used in 
>> combination with landuse=forestry because what
>> is currently on land used for forestry may not be trees but saplings or 
>> stumps.
>>
>>
>> I am coming around to this way of tagging.
>> Been looking at places tagged landuse=forest around me...
>> Some are forestry (yea!)
>> Some are parks ..
>> Some are nature reserves... (some of these are errors due to LPI map colours 
>> ... very similar from forestry to reserve. And yes, LPI is legally allowed 
>> in OSM)
>> Some are no more trees ... history .. though I have found one that is 
>> forestry .. just with the trees harvested and gone, they'll be back.
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
> ___
> 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] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

For landuse=forest or landuse=forestry I think landcover=trees would be
implicit (default), unless another landcover is specified.

I guess which values of landcover should be supported for rendering on OSM
Carto is a matter of later discussion. For now I would be happy with grass,
trees, scrub, and sand.

2018-06-12 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 12/06/18 19:37, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen  wrote:
>> >
>> > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not
>> > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often
>> called "Xyz Forest"
>>
>>
>> interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of trees has
>> actually the name “... forest”? I always thought a forest would require
>> more trees.
>>
>> Either one of us is completely misunderstanding what the other wrote or
> you're quibbling about the size of a group.
>
> Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees.  It is a nature reserve and so it
> is not used for forestry (aka logging).  There may
> be occasional felling of diseased trees but it is not systematically
> logged on a wide scale.
>
> This is why landuse=forest is problematical.  Sherwood Forest is not land
> used for forestry, but it is called Sherwood
> Forest so landuse=forest may seem like the correct tag to use (because it
> says "forest").
>
> That's why abandoning landuse=forest in favour of landcover=trees or
> landuse=forestry (as appropriate) is a good
> idea.  I'll also add that I don't think landcover=trees should be used in
> combination with landuse=forestry because what
> is currently on land used for forestry may not be trees but saplings or
> stumps.
>
>
> I am coming around to this way of tagging.
> Been looking at places tagged landuse=forest around me...
> Some are forestry (yea!)
> Some are parks ..
> Some are nature reserves... (some of these are errors due to LPI map
> colours ... very similar from forestry to reserve. And yes, LPI is legally
> allowed in OSM)
> Some are no more trees ... history .. though I have found one that is
> forestry .. just with the trees harvested and gone, they'll be back.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 12/06/18 19:37, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:



> On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not
> consistently used by a single organization for anything (and
often called "Xyz Forest"


interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of
trees has actually the name “... forest”? I always thought a
forest would require more trees.

Either one of us is completely misunderstanding what the other wrote 
or you're quibbling about the size of a group.


Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees.  It is a nature reserve and so 
it is not used for forestry (aka logging). There may
be occasional felling of diseased trees but it is not systematically 
logged on a wide scale.


This is why landuse=forest is problematical.  Sherwood Forest is not 
land used for forestry, but it is called Sherwood
Forest so landuse=forest may seem like the correct tag to use (because 
it says "forest").


That's why abandoning landuse=forest in favour of landcover=trees or 
landuse=forestry (as appropriate) is a good
idea.  I'll also add that I don't think landcover=trees should be used 
in combination with landuse=forestry because what
is currently on land used for forestry may not be trees but saplings 
or stumps.


I am coming around to this way of tagging.
Been looking at places tagged landuse=forest around me...
Some are forestry (yea!)
Some are parks ..
Some are nature reserves... (some of these are errors due to LPI map 
colours ... very similar from forestry to reserve. And yes, LPI is 
legally allowed in OSM)
Some are no more trees ... history .. though I have found one that is 
forestry .. just with the trees harvested and gone, they'll be back.


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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 11:41 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen  wrote:
> >
> > Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not
> > consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often
> called "Xyz Forest"
>
>
> interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of trees has
> actually the name “... forest”? I always thought a forest would require
> more trees.
>
> Either one of us is completely misunderstanding what the other wrote or
you're quibbling about the size of a group.

Sherwood Forest is 450 acres of trees.  It is a nature reserve and so it is
not used for forestry (aka logging).  There may
be occasional felling of diseased trees but it is not systematically logged
on a wide scale.

This is why landuse=forest is problematical.  Sherwood Forest is not land
used for forestry, but it is called Sherwood
Forest so landuse=forest may seem like the correct tag to use (because it
says "forest").

That's why abandoning landuse=forest in favour of landcover=trees or
landuse=forestry (as appropriate) is a good
idea.  I'll also add that I don't think landcover=trees should be used in
combination with landuse=forestry because what
is currently on land used for forestry may not be trees but saplings or
stumps.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 12/06/18 08:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 8. Jun 2018, at 17:32, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

Is there 'correct' tagging for these areas, which are widespread in the areas 
that I map and are important to the public?


there are 2 competing tags, leisure=nature_reserve and boundary protected area 
for this kind of object. None of them states it is named after a forest, or 
mainly covered by forest. Maybe this could become an additional property, e.g. 
for protected_area objects?


Usually the administration boundary does not define the plants stopping or 
starting at that same point.

So I prefer to define the plants with another relation/way rather than 
artificially use the administration boundary.

Thus I use landcover=trees (with natural=wood for the moment to keep rendering) 
for the tree areas - common around me and very extensive,
while the reserves and National Parks get different relations/ways for them.


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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Jun 2018, at 15:53, Paul Allen  wrote:
> 
> Landuse=forest could mean a group of trees which are not
> consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often called 
> "Xyz Forest"


interesting, can you give a real world example where a group of trees has 
actually the name “... forest”? I always thought a forest would require more 
trees.


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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. Jun 2018, at 17:32, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> Is there 'correct' tagging for these areas, which are widespread in the areas 
> that I map and are important to the public?


there are 2 competing tags, leisure=nature_reserve and boundary protected area 
for this kind of object. None of them states it is named after a forest, or 
mainly covered by forest. Maybe this could become an additional property, e.g. 
for protected_area objects?


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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Michael Patrick]

 >>> I wouldn't mind if all the existing tags were replaced tomorrow with a
>>> brand new set of "intelligently-designed" keys.
>> Designed by... a visionary leader? A board of experts? A random draw?

Yes, boards of experts. Subject matter experts.

Almost every significant theme that could possibly go into OSM has already
has some sort of classification / attribute ( 'tagging' ) schemes suitable
for 'whatever' scale, from the simple to the complex, some of them dating
back over a hundred years.


   - Some, like the *APA Land-Based Classification Standards
    (LBCS)* have been in
   development since before 1965. The LBCS can be used recursively through
   smaller levels of detail, so if you want, it's possible to describe a
   janitorial closet in an federal office rented from a commercial landlord in
   a historical building on land held in trust by a private foundation as part
   of a state university.
   - The* I**nternational Electrotechnical Commission* glossary (
   Electropedia ) has illustrated descriptions of anything attached to a power
   network, some already translated in multiple languages, for example overhead
   line tower structures
   
   - There are *NAICIS* ( SIC ) codes with their European and international
   equivalents, with codings for establishment sizes, and supply chain roles (
   wholesale, retail, etc. ) like our local coffee shop
   .
   - Outdoor display advertising ('signs') has an association with a
   typology of products from sidewalk switchboards to giant building sized LED
   billboards. Every scientific domain also has their hierarchical naming
   schemes for natural features, along wit efforts to reconcile the various
   domains like the *European Union's Inspire
    *effort. ( short
   intro  ).
   - Over the past thirty years or so, a lot of people have been making
   serious efforts to *converge* on common terminology and meanings in
   their fields, and also between their fields, and tools such as crosswalks
   to highlight *similarities* and preserve *differences* where it matters.
   - One of the tools I use is *Suggested Upper Merged Ontology* (*SUMO*) -
   if I search on the word 'bus'
   
,
   it not only gives me the expected meaning, but a lot of other possible
   meanings ( which can cause side effects ).

This is only to answer the 'Designed by ... ?' comment. The complete list
of standard objections about complexity, interfaces, use by ordinary folks
has a considerable volume of academic work available on Google Scholar, if
anyone wanted to apply it to OSM.

A huge thanks for everyone who contributed to this discussion, I learned a
lot about OSM.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 09/06/18 21:13, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2018-06-09 13:00, Warin wrote:


On 09/06/18 19:20, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote:

On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote:

This analogy also means that competition is
essential for progress
in OSM.


How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is
"better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more
mature? Is
our data quality improving? Do we have more "customers" than
before?
What defined "goals" have we achieved?


I have not defined progress and don't need to for the argument i
made.
It applies for any definition of progress you might have.  Or in
other
words: Here it just means the opposite of stagnation.

Stagnation is exactly where we are heading, isn't it?


With the passion shown on some subjects, I'd say OSM is very far from 
'stagnation'. :)


To me a stagnant pool is one with no life in it, no movement.
The OSM pool has ripples and waves of different opinions some of them 
clash and make turbulence. There is life in the OSM pool.


I suppose stagnation is not quite the right word. Ripples are evidence 
of energy, not progress being made. A boat straining against its 
anchor can make a splash, but the only effect is warming the sea up a 
little. I interpreted stagnation as not going anywhere.



Depends on you point of view.
If your the anchor looking back at the boat then it is not going anywhere.
If your the water looking at the boat then it is going somewhere.



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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. Jun 2018, at 10:22, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> I would start from easy wins, for example why we have both FIXME and fixme 
> tags?


+1
We have done something similar in the past: unification of yes, 1 and true for 
example. 



> Why we still have wikipedia:pl, wikipedia:en duplicating wikipedia keys?


they should not duplicate the wikipedia tag. These tags are meant for cases 
where wikipedia=* and interlinked pages of other languages are not sufficient. 
There can be several reasons for this, e.g. there are several articles for the 
same thing in osm, or the article in one language cannot be linked in wp (or 
simply isn’t yet linked), but should be linked in osm.

I don’t think we should change a significant amount of tags and restructure a 
lot of things, but there is a tiny fraction of unfortunate tags that could be 
rethought, in particular some few values of landuse, tourism and natural.

I also believe in principle in the system of tags emerging from mapping the 
world together, but it would require only or mostly mappers like you, who read 
the tagging mailing list and show general interest in tags. And we have already 
lost a lot of potential by imports. Imports generally work very bad together 
with a system like ours for creating tags (a system to describe the world). 
Most actual mappers (mapping by distinct user) don’t see tags, it’s all 
abstracted away from them behind presets and preset names (i.e. typically one 
word for the key/value pair, usually the value). Want an example? church and 
church. Both were presets for quite some time.


What ends up in the presets is decided by a group of programmers in Josm 
(ultimately by Dirk I believe, but he is typically not involved in preset 
questions AFAIK) and according to my experience just one maintainer in iD 
(Bryan). The only thing you can do to change a preset, remove it or add a new 
one is asking politely and explaining your reasoning, but there is typically no 
public discourse about presets, and while you can create alternative preset 
rules for josm if your plea was rejected, in iD there is nothing.

I do not intend to blame Bryan or Dirk for this, I can see it is simply because 
they are in the position where the decisions ultimately become code, and as 
there is no other process established yet, it is natural that it is like this, 
but I believe we should create a comunity led process to document and manage 
what ends up in presets / tag completion and maybe also in preset translations 
(many people use translations). For example while iD generally uses a sensible 
system to determine interesting tags (by usage), there are some “obscure” parts 
in the process which lead to some tags filtered out nonetheless they are used 
in bigger numbers, or in other occasions have been introducing tags which had 
no prior usage.
It is also clear that looking only at numbers is biased as well and cannot be 
the only answer to the problem, because some things occur more often than 
others, but being relatively rare doesn’t mean always something is not 
map-worthy. E.g. continents or country capitals are relatively rare, trash cans 
or traffic lights occur more often. And somehow it must either be determined 
which way of tagging is preferable or alternative ways should be presented and 
explained, what is generally not happening now.


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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Erkin Alp Güney]

09-06-2018 16:56 tarihinde Paul Allen yazdı:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> A 'benevolent dictator'.
>
> Let us know if you find one.
>
>
> He's called Linus Torvalds.  Unfortunately, he's too busy with Linux
> to be able to
> take control of OSM.  And some people object to his use of expletives.
>
> If somebody figures out how to clone him, though, we might reconsider. :)
We can call our founder, Steve Coast, for that duty.

Yours, faithfully
Erkin Alp

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

A 'benevolent dictator'.
>
> Let us know if you find one.
>

He's called Linus Torvalds.  Unfortunately, he's too busy with Linux to be
able to
take control of OSM.  And some people object to his use of expletives.

If somebody figures out how to clone him, though, we might reconsider. :)

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 07/06/18 23:00, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
>> I think landuse=forest should remain intact, for cases where forestry is
>> actually how the land is used.
>> So the tag is not deprecated, it's just applicated more consistently.
>>
>
> So you're proposing to change the meaning of a tag that has 3.5 million
> uses?
>
> I'm sure that you have only the best of intentions, but, er, good luck
> with that :)
>

Indeed.  Others have pointed out elsewhere that the only way to make this
sort of thing work is with new
tags, such as happened with landuse=farm.  Landuse=farm was ambiguous in
meaning, and the meaning
was unclear in the wiki.  It has been superseded with landuse=farmyard and
landuse=farmland, which cover
the two cases which were formerly dealt with by landuse=farm.

It is also clear (to me) that we should strive to create keys which have
unambiguous meanings in British
English (since that is the dialect used by OSM).  Landuse=forest could mean
a group of trees which are not
consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often called
"Xyz Forest" or "Pqr Wood"), or it
could mean an area used for forestry (and might currently have stumps,
saplings or mature trees).  Therefore we
should be promoting landuse=forestry (unambiguous) and landcover=trees
(somewhat ambiguous, but
for use where forestry isn't applicable), or whatever we eventually (3o
years from now?) decide upon.  To
a large extent, the problem we currently have with landuse=forest is that
it should have originally been
named landuse=forestry to prevent the ambiguous usage we now have with
landuse=forest.

It's no good arguing that the wiki should explain ambiguous tags because
people with English as a first
language often do not look at the wiki (they assume the tag means what it
says).  It would help,
though, if editor presets offered extra guidance (at least at the first
use) such as pointing out that
landuse=forestry and landcover=trees are possible alternatives and which
should be used in which
circumstance (again, assuming those are the two we decide upon 97 years
from now).

It's no good saying that a mass edit can fix it.  A mass edit (along with
changes to editor presets and
renderers) could only work if the tag were unambiguous and used correctly
in 99.99% of cases.  Unless
the proposer is willing to personally survey each use and decide whether or
not the new tag is
applicable, mass edits of ambiguous tags won't work.  A mass edit might be
sensible with a tag that is
mis-spelled, but it is not sensible for a tag which has been used to map
two or more different types of object
that we now realize should be mapped differently.

I now give you a quote from Fred Brooks Jr:

The management question, therefore, is not *whether* to build a pilot
system and throw it away. You *will*
do that. […] Hence

*plan to throw one away; you will, anyhow.*
He was writing of software projects.  And he's since partially recanted by
saying it's applicable only to
waterfall development.  But the concept still applies here.  The first time
you tackle a software project
(or design a mapping system like OSM) you don't fully comprehend the
requirements or how it will
actually be used.  What you end up with is imperfect, but you also learn
how to do it better the next time.

OSM evolved in an ad-hoc way.  The result is a set of tags which aren't
orthogonal and which aren't
all intuitive.  The ONLY way you can fix it is with a new project that
starts from scratch and requires
everything to be mapped from scratch (otherwise all you've done is fixed
"spelling errors" in tag names).
And, if you do that, even if what you come up with is perfect it will not
remain so because people keep
finding new types of things to match.  There isn't going to be a "next
time" with OSM (feel free to
prove me wrong by forking it and encouraging people to enter all the data
from scratch).

The best we can do with things like landuse=forest is come up with two or
more new tags, promote
the new tags, maybe have editors warn that the old tag is deprecated, and
let the old tag fade away.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-06-09 13:00, Warin wrote:

> On 09/06/18 19:20, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
> On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: 
> On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: This analogy also means that 
> competition is essential for progress
> in OSM.

How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is
"better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more mature? Is
our data quality improving? Do we have more "customers" than before?
What defined "goals" have we achieved? 
I have not defined progress and don't need to for the argument i made.  
It applies for any definition of progress you might have.  Or in other 
words: Here it just means the opposite of stagnation. 
Stagnation is exactly where we are heading, isn't it? 
With the passion shown on some subjects, I'd say OSM is very far from
'stagnation'. :) 

To me a stagnant pool is one with no life in it, no movement. 
The OSM pool has ripples and waves of different opinions some of them
clash and make turbulence. There is life in the OSM pool. 

I suppose stagnation is not quite the right word. Ripples are evidence
of energy, not progress being made. A boat straining against its anchor
can make a splash, but the only effect is warming the sea up a little. I
interpreted stagnation as not going anywhere.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 09/06/18 19:20, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote:


On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote:

This analogy also means that competition is essential for progress
in OSM.


How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is
"better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more mature? Is
our data quality improving? Do we have more "customers" than before?
What defined "goals" have we achieved?


I have not defined progress and don't need to for the argument i made.
It applies for any definition of progress you might have.  Or in other
words: Here it just means the opposite of stagnation.

Stagnation is exactly where we are heading, isn't it?


With the passion shown on some subjects, I'd say OSM is very far from 
'stagnation'. :)


To me a stagnant pool is one with no life in it, no movement.
The OSM pool has ripples and waves of different opinions some of them 
clash and make turbulence. There is life in the OSM pool.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote:

> On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: This analogy also means that 
> competition is essential for progress
> in OSM.

How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is
"better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more mature? Is
our data quality improving? Do we have more "customers" than before?
What defined "goals" have we achieved? 
I have not defined progress and don't need to for the argument i made.  
It applies for any definition of progress you might have.  Or in other 
words: Here it just means the opposite of stagnation. 

Stagnation is exactly where we are heading, isn't it? 

Phrases like "best map in/of the world" are fine in corporate mission
statements but it's hardly SMART[1]. 

Colin 

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote:
> >> This analogy also means that competition is essential for progress
> >> in OSM.
>
> How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is
> "better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more mature? Is
> our data quality improving? Do we have more "customers" than before?
> What defined "goals" have we achieved?

I have not defined progress and don't need to for the argument i made.  
It applies for any definition of progress you might have.  Or in other 
words: Here it just means the opposite of stagnation.

Most people probably agree that in the OSM context the ultimate goal is 
to create the best map of the world.  And that for this you need a 
global community of active local mappers.  But this and all the details 
around it is a very different subject for which this is not really the 
right venue.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-06-09 10:00, Christoph Hormann wrote:

>> This analogy also means that competition is essential for progress in 
>> OSM.

How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is "better"
than in the past? Are our processes becoming more mature? Is our data
quality improving? Do we have more "customers" than before? What defined
"goals" have we achieved? 

I don't mean to be cynical, but I am truly unable to work out what our
defined aims are, so that we may measure progress against them.
Continued existence doesn't count by the way. 

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 09 June 2018, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:
>
> I have been editing in OSM for almost four years, and I've been a
> member of this mailing list almost since then.  I read every single
> post. During that time I have never seen what I would consider a
> consensus reached on anything.  I'm not sure it's even possible.
> [...]

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of consensus here as it 
applies to OSM overall.  This does not require explicit agreement by 
all mappers, this would not be feasible.  Consensus is more about 
finding the overall or on average most satisfying approach to a 
problem.

> I've seen several tags debated more than once in four years.  I can
> only assume that each time, a different group of people get drawn in
> to the discussion, unaware that the issue has been debated before,
> with no resolution.  This cycle is doomed to repeat itself over and
> over, as long as OSM proceeds the way it is.  A waste of time and
> effort!

If you try to follow evey tagging debate here and on the wiki i agree, 
this is very frustrating and wasteful.  I prefer to see this as a 
statistical process.  We are a diverse global community, it is 
unavoidable that every topic of significance gets discussed many 
times - in different languages and in different settings.  And often 
even more than once in the same setting as you mention.  Everyone is 
free to ignore any of these discussions and should do so when it seems 
wise to do that.  But every now and then one of these discussions 
yields a new idea no one had before and in some of these cases someone 
picks up this idea and communicates it further so it might be adopted 
by the community at large.

I have learned to mentally filter out the discussions here centered 
around key systematics for example over time (though i am sometimes 
complementing if there are some keywords i could use for automatic 
filtering).

> I don't see how OSM can work well when mappers are free to tag
> however they want.  Different people have diametrically opposed ideas
> about how things should be done.  For example, some people think the
> meaning of a tag in OSM should be the dictionary meaning of the word;
> others are okay with a tag word having a "special" meaning in OSM. 
> How is a mapper to decide?  There is no consensus on this issue. 

I think this confusion comes from the fact that you are looking for 
structure where there is none to be found.  Freedom to tag means the 
mappers can decide on a new tag in any way they like.  If they choose 
badly other mappers are less likely to pick up their choice and make it 
a widely used tag.  Yes, very wasteful again for someone who is used to 
a top down approach.

Maybe the best analogy for tagging in OSM is biological evolution.  You 
could also kind of argue that evolution can't work with individuals 
mostly dying at random and arbitrary genetic mutations deciding on how 
things develop.  Bio-engineering would be so much more efficient - 
except that we would be way over our heads with the decisions what 
genetic traits are actually advantageous in the grand scheme of things.

This analogy also means that competition is essential for progress in 
OSM.  We need more competition on all levels - both from outside OSM 
(which is why the idea of a fork with a more structured tagging system 
is a good one) and from inside in form of more map styles featuring 
different sets of tags.  The way OSM works depends on these things as 
incentives for progress - just like evolution depends on ecological 
niches and competition for creating diversity and selection pressure.

> Although OSM has a policy of "any tag you like," based on the posts
> I've read, it seems most mappers want some guidance when it comes to
> tagging.  I deduce this from all the posts I read from contributors
> having to do with editing and refining the wiki.  However, there
> isn't even agreement on the purpose of the wiki.

You probably have - based on this particular discussion - a somewhat 
exaggerated impression of the lack of agreement.  There is a small but 
voiceful group of people who like to push certain ideas in this matter 
and are willing to bend or ignore both established rules and the vast 
majority of mappers to do that.  But there is no serious question on 
the main purpose of the tag documentation part of the wiki, this stems 
from the very principles of OSM.  If some people ignore those rules or 
question them in dicussions this does not mean they cease to exist.

And i think you are not correct with your assessment of what most 
mappers want.  Most mappers are not native English speakers so they 
would not receive most guidance created by some tagging authority 
anyway.  Most mappers want tags that represent what they see in 
reality, not something that fits into the systematics thought up by 
some committee of people from Central Europe and North America with no 
clue about the diversity in culture and geography world wide.

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 09/06/18 01:32, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:


8. Jun 2018 00:48 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com
:

In the meantime, there is no supported tagging to show
'forestry' as a land use rather than asserting 'every square
metre of this polygon is covered with trees.'


I see no reason whatsoever to render this kind of landuse on
general purpose map.

The "No. You can't have that." answer, as predicted. But I strongly 
disagree.


Let me take a step back.

I'm chiefly concerned with how I ought to be tagging objects for which 
I maintain imports. I simply want to have some tagging available that 
will neither sacrifice rendering nor incur the wrath of the ontologists.


Among these are some areas that have titles like 'State Forest'. They 
are well delineated. They are signed. While they lack developed 
facilities for recreation (typically limited to some blazed trails, 
some unpaved parking, and perhaps a notice board and register book at 
a trailhead), they offer many recreational opportunities for hikers, 
cyclists, equestrians, skiers, snowshoers, snowmobilists, canoeists, 
bird watchers, hunters, trappers and fisherfolk. They are open to the 
public, in general, whenever active harvesting is not in progress and 
the area is not newly planted for reforestation. They are at present 
tagged 'boundary=protected_area' with a protection class corresponding 
to the regulatory regime in effect for a given area.


They are not parks, and surely not national parks, but they occupy a 
similar space in the public consciousness, because of the recreational 
opportunities they offer. According to the Wiki description, 
'leisure=park' is clearly wrong - it envisions considerably more 
developed facilities than a patch of woodland. Still, the general 
public would surely expect that a map would include them - just as it 
includes parks.


They are currently tagged redundantly. The tag that they all share is 
'leisure=nature_reserve'. The term is not quite correct but it is 
nearly infinitely elastic. Since they are created to conserve land for 
sustainable forestry, they do have the conservation of nature as at 
least one objective. In my region there's a pretty broad consensus 
that it's the 'least worst' tagging that still renders.


They are also tagged 'boundary=protected_area protect_class=6'. This 
may be inaccurate, but these areas are listed as such on the IUCN site 
as well as OSM. At present some are also incorrectly marked 
'landuse=forest', partly because when the import was performed, the 
Wiki happened to be in a state where it described the tag as meaning 
'land managed for forestry', and the import followed the Wiki advice. 
Nobody raised the issue on talk-us or imports when the import was 
discussed.


The key aspect that makes the general public expect to see these areas 
rendered is the public recreational use. Nevertheless, that is a 
secondary use - the primary land use is that these areas are 
productive forests.


Because many of the areas are large, they comprise ponds, mud flats, 
meadows, scrub and shrub, alder thickets - nearly the entire ecologic 
succession. Many of the ponds are cyclic and may in a few decades be 
woodland again, depending on where the beavers take up residence next. 
Even without human intervention, the land cover is not stable. Modern 
management does not attempt to extirpate the beaver (as it did a 
century ago!) but instead recognizes this as a key process in 
rebuilding the soil, preventing flooding and erosion, and supporting 
needed biodiversity. Hence, the entire area is not 'natural=wood' nor 
'landcover=trees'. It has varied landcover that I generally map only 
for specific projects such as large-scale trail maps. Instead, I rely 
on third-party datasets based on multi-band and multi-season satellite 
imagery to identify the ecozones.


So I return to the question: Is there 'correct' tagging for these 
areas, which are widespread in the areas that I map and are important 
to the public? What is the best strategy for keeping these areas 
rendered in the short term while still describing them correctly so 
that future rendering improvements can exploit the mapped information?


I ask this question about once a year - and every time, a significant 
fraction of respondents give me answers that amount to, "You can't 
have that because it doesn't fit the ontology," or "You shouldn't want 
to render that because so few people are interested in that sort of 
primitive outdoor recreation", or "the fact that the land use follows 
a property line makes it parcel data, and we don't do cadastral 
information", or any number of other answers that dismiss the question 
rather than trying to answer it.


I don't care what the 'correct' tagging is. I simply get tired of 
hearing that everything I try is 'incorrect.' or that 

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

 > If you're trying to tell a group of people within OSM to do things
differently  ...

I'm not. I am asking about an existing and growing tagging practice and
existing tagging proposal, trying to see if things could move a little
towards a solution within existing standard OSM practice.

I only suggested adding an already existing type of rendering for one
already existing key which has gained some usage despite not being
rendered, not inventing something totally new. I am asking about the
conditions which would have to be met for the standard OSM Carto to
consider doing this. That is not  "tell a group of people within OSM do
things differently".

A proposal for rendering a particular tag which doesn't hurt anyone, is
fully backwards compatible and has already gained some popularity, on OSM
Carto, is hardly a revolution or worth a fork.



2018-06-08 17:52 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend :

> On 08/06/2018 16:03, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
>>
>> In this case, rendering is crucial so any documentation would need to
>> address that.
>>
>
> To echo what other people have suggested, you are entirely free to set up
> a rendering* of whatever OSM tags you want as however you want.  To do that
> for Belgium (apologies if I'm misremembering where you're from) would cost
> no more than the price of a decent beer per month.  Setup might take a day
> if you've not done it before; maintenance essentially as much or as little
> time as you want to spend experimenting with the style.
>
> Presumably, however, you're not talking about "a map rendering", you're
> talking about one particular one - the "standard" layer on
> openstreetmap.org (it's only really "standard" to OSM editors though;
> most people who see OSM data will actually see in or a Mapbox map, or in
> MAPS.ME, or in a completely different rendering on a company's website or
> on a sign at a railway station)?
>
> If you're trying to tell a group of people within OSM to do things
> differently the traditional way is to do it yourself, and make your version
> better than what exists already.  In this case the barrier to entry is
> pretty low, and there's a wealth of information about style design at
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/ and tools (such as a
> deployable Docker "tile design" instance) that can be used to get you
> started quickly.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> * https://switch2osm.org/manually-building-a-tile-server-18-04-lts/
> ** https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

8. Jun 2018 17:32 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com 
:


> So I return to the question: Is there 'correct' tagging for these areas, 
> which are widespread in the areas that I map and are important to the public? 
> What is the best strategy for keeping these areas rendered in the short term 
> while still describing them correctly so that future rendering improvements 
> can exploit the mapped information?
>




both leisure=nature_reserve and boundary=protected_area protect_class=6 sound OK




though it is hard to say more as such entities are not existing in my region 
(in Poland large

part of forest are public and it is typical that they have some sort of 
amenities, but there 


are no cases of such high concentration of amenities in a given well defined 
region with

a legal status).




It is hard to say whatever new tag should be created or currently used are good 
enough to fit.

> I ask this question about once a year - and every time, a significant 
> fraction of respondents give me answers that amount to, "You can't have that 
> because it doesn't fit the ontology," 




wat. It makes no sense at all, we have no tagging czar.




If something is mappable and no tag fits the answer should be "invent a new 
tag".
 ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Andy Townsend]

On 08/06/2018 16:03, Peter Elderson wrote:


In this case, rendering is crucial so any documentation would need to 
address that.


To echo what other people have suggested, you are entirely free to set 
up a rendering* of whatever OSM tags you want as however you want.  To 
do that for Belgium (apologies if I'm misremembering where you're from) 
would cost no more than the price of a decent beer per month.  Setup 
might take a day if you've not done it before; maintenance essentially 
as much or as little time as you want to spend experimenting with the style.


Presumably, however, you're not talking about "a map rendering", you're 
talking about one particular one - the "standard" layer on 
openstreetmap.org (it's only really "standard" to OSM editors though; 
most people who see OSM data will actually see in or a Mapbox map, or in 
MAPS.ME, or in a completely different rendering on a company's website 
or on a sign at a railway station)?


If you're trying to tell a group of people within OSM to do things 
differently the traditional way is to do it yourself, and make your 
version better than what exists already.  In this case the barrier to 
entry is pretty low, and there's a wealth of information about style 
design at https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/ and tools 
(such as a deployable Docker "tile design" instance) that can be used to 
get you started quickly.


Best Regards,

Andy

* https://switch2osm.org/manually-building-a-tile-server-18-04-lts/
** https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/


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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> This is not 'deprecating' landuse=forest - -
>
> it's still there, it can be there indefinitely, it can render correctly.
>
>
> It is exactly deprecating it - see for example
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deprecation
>
> "In several fields, *deprecation* is the discouragement of use of some
> terminology, feature,
> design, or practice, typically because it has been superseded or is no
> longer considered
> efficient or safe, without completely removing it or prohibiting its use. "
>
>
'Deprecation' when applied to features of computer programs usually
indicatesan eventual intent to de-support them and a warning that they may
be de-supported. I'm not in any way asserting that landuse=forest ought not
to be used, merely suggesting that users be warned that the
natural-language meaning might be misleading. It's not unsafe, it's not
inefficient, it's perfectly acceptable to use it with its current meaning -
but it does not describe a land use, it describes a land cover, and if a
land use is intended, a different tag is needed.

I had not realized that you object to 'deprecation' in so broad a sense
that it comprises even a mild warning that 'landuse=forest' is a term of
art in OSM that might not match the natural-language meaning.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Kevin Kenny]

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> 8. Jun 2018 00:48 by kevin.b.kenny+...@gmail.com:
>
> In the meantime, there is no supported tagging to show 'forestry' as a
> land use rather than asserting 'every square metre of this polygon is
> covered with trees.'
>
>
> I see no reason whatsoever to render this kind of landuse on general
> purpose map.
>
The "No. You can't have that." answer, as predicted. But I strongly
disagree.

Let me take a step back.

I'm chiefly concerned with how I ought to be tagging objects for which I
maintain imports. I simply want to have some tagging available that will
neither sacrifice rendering nor incur the wrath of the ontologists.

Among these are some areas that have titles like 'State Forest'. They are
well delineated. They are signed. While they lack developed facilities for
recreation (typically limited to some blazed trails, some unpaved parking,
and perhaps a notice board and register book at a trailhead), they offer
many recreational opportunities for hikers, cyclists, equestrians, skiers,
snowshoers, snowmobilists, canoeists, bird watchers, hunters, trappers and
fisherfolk. They are open to the public, in general, whenever active
harvesting is not in progress and the area is not newly planted for
reforestation. They are at present tagged 'boundary=protected_area' with a
protection class corresponding to the regulatory regime in effect for a
given area.

They are not parks, and surely not national parks, but they occupy a
similar space in the public consciousness, because of the recreational
opportunities they offer. According to the Wiki description, 'leisure=park'
is clearly wrong - it envisions considerably more developed facilities than
a patch of woodland. Still, the general public would surely expect that a
map would include them - just as it includes parks.

They are currently tagged redundantly. The tag that they all share is
'leisure=nature_reserve'. The term is not quite correct but it is nearly
infinitely elastic. Since they are created to conserve land for sustainable
forestry, they do have the conservation of nature as at least one
objective. In my region there's a pretty broad consensus that it's the
'least worst' tagging that still renders.

They are also tagged 'boundary=protected_area protect_class=6'. This may be
inaccurate, but these areas are listed as such on the IUCN site as well as
OSM. At present some are also incorrectly marked 'landuse=forest', partly
because when the import was performed, the Wiki happened to be in a state
where it described the tag as meaning 'land managed for forestry', and the
import followed the Wiki advice. Nobody raised the issue on talk-us or
imports when the import was discussed.

The key aspect that makes the general public expect to see these areas
rendered is the public recreational use. Nevertheless, that is a secondary
use - the primary land use is that these areas are productive forests.

Because many of the areas are large, they comprise ponds, mud flats,
meadows, scrub and shrub, alder thickets - nearly the entire ecologic
succession. Many of the ponds are cyclic and may in a few decades be
woodland again, depending on where the beavers take up residence next. Even
without human intervention, the land cover is not stable. Modern management
does not attempt to extirpate the beaver (as it did a century ago!) but
instead recognizes this as a key process in rebuilding the soil, preventing
flooding and erosion, and supporting needed biodiversity. Hence, the entire
area is not 'natural=wood' nor 'landcover=trees'. It has varied landcover
that I generally map only for specific projects such as large-scale trail
maps. Instead, I rely on third-party datasets based on multi-band and
multi-season satellite imagery to identify the ecozones.

So I return to the question: Is there 'correct' tagging for these areas,
which are widespread in the areas that I map and are important to the
public? What is the best strategy for keeping these areas rendered in the
short term while still describing them correctly so that future rendering
improvements can exploit the mapped information?

I ask this question about once a year - and every time, a significant
fraction of respondents give me answers that amount to, "You can't have
that because it doesn't fit the ontology," or "You shouldn't want to render
that because so few people are interested in that sort of primitive outdoor
recreation", or "the fact that the land use follows a property line makes
it parcel data, and we don't do cadastral information", or any number of
other answers that dismiss the question rather than trying to answer it.

I don't care what the 'correct' tagging is. I simply get tired of hearing
that everything I try is 'incorrect.' or that features that many in the
general public in my region care about are too specialized to render.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

I am justr trying to get concrete answers and apply them to the argument at
hand. Thanks for the answers.

In this case, rendering is crucial so any documentation would need to
address that. I have not seen wiki pages just to force rendering, though,
but I can see how it sort of builds the pressure.

2018-06-08 16:35 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :

> On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > > Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant
> > > criterion for decisions in the standard style if to render a
> > > certain tag.  Tags have been added to rendering with less than a
> > > hundred uses and tags have been rejected with more than 100k uses i
> > > think.
> >
> > Are you saying no amount of existing tagging would convince you to
> > consider supporting the standard rendering of landcover=trees and
> > landcover=grass?
> >
> > > Any tag that is deliberately used by mappers (i.e. that is not a
> > > typo or vandalism or similar) should be documented on the wiki.
> >
> > That would include landcover=*. Would that be an argument to consider
> > supporting the standard rendering and support in mapping tools?
>
> Peter, i get the distinct impression you are not actually interested in
> the answers to your questions but use them as vehicles to push your
> point of view in tagging.
>
> If you are interested in my opinion ask open questions and show some
> appreciation and acceptance of the answers you get and don't just
> continue asking questions until you get an answer you like.
>
> I will none the less try to answer your new question with
>
> 1) As i have already said historically absolute use numbers have not
> been a significant criterion for decisions in the standard style and
> they would not be a criterion in my decisions.  I can't speak for the
> other maintainers of course.
>
> 2) A good documentation of a tag on the wiki that accurately describes
> how the tag is acutally used is very helpful for both mappers and data
> users and as such very useful when making rendering decisions.
> Attempts at writing a tag page (or a tagging proposal) on the wiki
> specifically to get it rendered however are just annoying.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant
> > criterion for decisions in the standard style if to render a
> > certain tag.  Tags have been added to rendering with less than a
> > hundred uses and tags have been rejected with more than 100k uses i
> > think.
>
> Are you saying no amount of existing tagging would convince you to
> consider supporting the standard rendering of landcover=trees and
> landcover=grass?
>
> > Any tag that is deliberately used by mappers (i.e. that is not a
> > typo or vandalism or similar) should be documented on the wiki.
>
> That would include landcover=*. Would that be an argument to consider
> supporting the standard rendering and support in mapping tools?

Peter, i get the distinct impression you are not actually interested in 
the answers to your questions but use them as vehicles to push your 
point of view in tagging.

If you are interested in my opinion ask open questions and show some 
appreciation and acceptance of the answers you get and don't just 
continue asking questions until you get an answer you like.

I will none the less try to answer your new question with

1) As i have already said historically absolute use numbers have not 
been a significant criterion for decisions in the standard style and 
they would not be a criterion in my decisions.  I can't speak for the 
other maintainers of course.

2) A good documentation of a tag on the wiki that accurately describes 
how the tag is acutally used is very helpful for both mappers and data 
users and as such very useful when making rendering decisions.  
Attempts at writing a tag page (or a tagging proposal) on the wiki 
specifically to get it rendered however are just annoying.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018, 03:34 Peter Elderson  wrote:

> > Some tags have so much 'use' (I prefer the term 'misuse' in some cases.. 
> > that
> convincing most that they need to change gets very hard.
>
> True, but if the change is a change of direction not requiring massive
> changes, 100% backwards compatible, the change is already in progress
> despite not being rendered, and the only thing in the way is in fact the
> lack of rendering while at the tagging side people would prefer the
> direction change if it was... I think it's more like a veto than like a
> lack of consensus about the idea.
>

Seems to be the same situation on counting all lanes as lanes instead of
picking and choosing.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

 >> At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is
>> appropriate?

> Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant criterion
> for decisions in the standard style if to render a certain tag.  Tags
> have been added to rendering with less than a hundred uses and tags
> have been rejected with more than 100k uses i think.

Are you saying no amount of existing tagging would convince you to consider
supporting the standard rendering of landcover=trees and landcover=grass?

>> At what usage level should it be documented on the wiki
>> pages?

> Any tag that is deliberately used by mappers (i.e. that is not a typo or
> vandalism or similar) should be documented on the wiki.

That would include landcover=*. Would that be an argument to consider
supporting the standard rendering and support in mapping tools?


2018-06-08 13:55 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :

> On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Agreed, but on this list discussion is in order, right? And here I
> > didn't see  anyone "desiring an authorative top down tagging system -
> > derailing the community processes" .
>
> Much of the conversation in this thread has been very dysfunctional from
> my point of view with a lot of dogmatism on the side of of the 'key
> systematics fraction' and insistent refusal to look outside the own
> filter bubble and to accept the existence of other valid world views.
>
> Citing once again from Andy's earlier mail:
>
> > The tagging list does occasionally fall into the wiki-hole of trying
> > to tell people how to map rather than communally deciding the best
> > way to map something (including by looking at how people already
> > do).  In any situation where you're trying to suggest that "everybody
> > else is wrong" you need to get over it, and OSM in particular has
> > thrived where other similar projects failed simply because people can
> > always find a way of expressing a particular concept - they can
> > create a way of representing it themselves without a "domain expert"
> > creating it for them first. There may well be a concept out there
> > waiting to be mapped that needs a "landcover" tag (and it might be
> > "municipal greenery"), but it's not grass or trees.
>
> There is a fine line between having a passionate opinion about something
> and being so convinced about the righteousness of your cause that you
> drift into dogmatism and intolerance.
>
> > At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is
> > appropriate?
>
> Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant criterion
> for decisions in the standard style if to render a certain tag.  Tags
> have been added to rendering with less than a hundred uses and tags
> have been rejected with more than 100k uses i think.  Of course every
> maintainer is free to base decisions on any criteria they see fit.
>
> > At what usage level should it be documented on the wiki
> > pages?
>
> Any tag that is deliberately used by mappers (i.e. that is not a typo or
> vandalism or similar) should be documented on the wiki.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Agreed, but on this list discussion is in order, right? And here I
> didn't see  anyone "desiring an authorative top down tagging system -
> derailing the community processes" .

Much of the conversation in this thread has been very dysfunctional from 
my point of view with a lot of dogmatism on the side of of the 'key 
systematics fraction' and insistent refusal to look outside the own 
filter bubble and to accept the existence of other valid world views.

Citing once again from Andy's earlier mail:

> The tagging list does occasionally fall into the wiki-hole of trying
> to tell people how to map rather than communally deciding the best
> way to map something (including by looking at how people already
> do).  In any situation where you're trying to suggest that "everybody
> else is wrong" you need to get over it, and OSM in particular has
> thrived where other similar projects failed simply because people can
> always find a way of expressing a particular concept - they can
> create a way of representing it themselves without a "domain expert"
> creating it for them first. There may well be a concept out there
> waiting to be mapped that needs a "landcover" tag (and it might be
> "municipal greenery"), but it's not grass or trees.

There is a fine line between having a passionate opinion about something 
and being so convinced about the righteousness of your cause that you 
drift into dogmatism and intolerance.

> At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is
> appropriate?

Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant criterion 
for decisions in the standard style if to render a certain tag.  Tags 
have been added to rendering with less than a hundred uses and tags 
have been rejected with more than 100k uses i think.  Of course every 
maintainer is free to base decisions on any criteria they see fit.

> At what usage level should it be documented on the wiki 
> pages?

Any tag that is deliberately used by mappers (i.e. that is not a typo or 
vandalism or similar) should be documented on the wiki.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

Agreed, but on this list discussion is in order, right? And here I didn't
see  anyone "desiring an authorative top down tagging system - derailing
the community processes" .

At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is
appropriate? At what usage level should it be documented on the wiki pages?

2018-06-08 12:40 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :

> On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > > ... those who desire a strong hand and an authorative top
> >
> > down tagging system - by derailing the community processes 
> >
> > I don't see anyone desiring and doing that in this discussion. Why
> > the strawman argument?
>
> Just look at the edit histories of the wiki pages in question.
>
> Or as i have said in
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/036876.html
>
> > The problem here is that it is not just one or two, there is a
> > significant group of people, at least a dozen overall i suppose, who
> > on the wiki consider it their mission to educate mappers on correct
> > use of tags (based on certain ideas regarding key semantics or data
> > model ideas in general) rather than documenting their actual use.
>
> As i said again and again:  The main purpose of the tag documentation on
> the wiki is to document the actual use of tags.  Abusing this platform
> to push political ideas how tagging in OSM should look like according
> to some opinion is what i call derailing the community processes.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > ... those who desire a strong hand and an authorative top
>
> down tagging system - by derailing the community processes 
>
> I don't see anyone desiring and doing that in this discussion. Why
> the strawman argument?

Just look at the edit histories of the wiki pages in question.

Or as i have said in

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-June/036876.html

> The problem here is that it is not just one or two, there is a
> significant group of people, at least a dozen overall i suppose, who
> on the wiki consider it their mission to educate mappers on correct
> use of tags (based on certain ideas regarding key semantics or data
> model ideas in general) rather than documenting their actual use.

As i said again and again:  The main purpose of the tag documentation on 
the wiki is to document the actual use of tags.  Abusing this platform 
to push political ideas how tagging in OSM should look like according 
to some opinion is what i call derailing the community processes.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

> ... those who desire a strong hand and an authorative top
down tagging system - by derailing the community processes 

I don't see anyone desiring and doing that in this discussion. Why the
strawman argument?

2018-06-08 12:00 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :

> On Friday 08 June 2018, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> >
> > In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with
> > it is to edit it
> >
> > (it generally takes less time than complaining).
>
> I try to do that but don't really have the stomach to engage in turf
> wars with defenders of religion-like views on what tags should mean and
> which tags are good and bad.  And as you can see this is exactly what
> is happening with your edits again.
>
> The irony is that those who desire a strong hand and an authorative top
> down tagging system - by derailing the community processes - instill a
> desire for an authority to stop this even among those who are in
> general in support of a liberal and non-authoritarian community.
>
> An egalitarian and open community like OSM is a fragile thing...
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 08 June 2018, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with
> it is to edit it
>
> (it generally takes less time than complaining).

I try to do that but don't really have the stomach to engage in turf 
wars with defenders of religion-like views on what tags should mean and 
which tags are good and bad.  And as you can see this is exactly what 
is happening with your edits again.

The irony is that those who desire a strong hand and an authorative top 
down tagging system - by derailing the community processes - instill a 
desire for an authority to stop this even among those who are in 
general in support of a liberal and non-authoritarian community.

An egalitarian and open community like OSM is a fragile thing...

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

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 08/06/18 19:03, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

6. Jun 2018 16:34 by o...@imagico.de :

The problem here is that it is not just one or two, there is a
significant group of people, at least a dozen overall i suppose,
who on
the wiki consider it their mission to educate mappers on correct
use of
tags (based on certain ideas regarding key semantics or data model
ideas in general) rather than documenting their actual use. The
uselessness of many tag pages on the wiki -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dgrass and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dtrees are good
examples here - is largely due to that. They are filled with talking
points from the fight for 'correct' key semantics that leave the
mapper
looking for substantial information on tag use with nothing but
confusion.


I made some edits intended to fix this issue:


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Alanduse%3Dgrass=revision=1615924=1589206


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Landuse=revision=1615922=1601313


https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Alanduse=revision=1615920=1557401


In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with 
it is to edit it


(it generally takes less time than complaining).



And results in edit wars.
I have amended your edit on landuse... and in landcover
I do not like the change the meaning of land use as defined on its wiki 
page. So I have tried to moderate that.


I hope I have been even handed .. but I have my bias too!!!

Would someone like to read them and see what you think? Preferable 
someone with less passion than I (and possibly some others).



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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

 > In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with it
is to edit it

Would you like me to add more realistic and more common examples of
landuses which are not landuses? I just checked the residential I live in
and most of the landuse=forest an landuse=grass areas are much more
significant than the middle of a roundabout or grass on a railway.

2018-06-08 11:03 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 6. Jun 2018 16:34 by o...@imagico.de:
>
> The problem here is that it is not just one or two, there is a
> significant group of people, at least a dozen overall i suppose, who on
> the wiki consider it their mission to educate mappers on correct use of
> tags (based on certain ideas regarding key semantics or data model
> ideas in general) rather than documenting their actual use. The
> uselessness of many tag pages on the wiki -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dgrass and
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dtrees are good
> examples here - is largely due to that. They are filled with talking
> points from the fight for 'correct' key semantics that leave the mapper
> looking for substantial information on tag use with nothing but
> confusion.
>
>
> I made some edits intended to fix this issue:
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%
> 3Alanduse%3Dgrass=revision=1615924=1589206
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Landuse;
> type=revision=1615922=1601313
>
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%
> 3Alanduse=revision=1615920=1557401
>
>
> In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with it
> is to edit it
>
> (it generally takes less time than complaining).
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 08/06/18 19:05, Peter Elderson wrote:
Most would agree that it is rather stretching the meaning of forest, 
but it's the closest availabl tag to get the tree patches rendered on 
the map.

natural=wood works... and is 'free' of the land use requirement.
The word 'natural' has been taken to mean anything in OSM .. sigh.
So natural=wood is much bette thatn landuse=forest.

 Landcover is a much clear meaning and can be used for 'natural' and 
'unnatural'.

So I normally combine it with anything that is tagged 'natural'.



2018-06-08 10:54 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny >:


8. Jun 2018 10:43 by lionel.gi...@gmail.com
:

- first, add landcover=trees in the renderer (putting it the
same as landuse=forest probably), just to make a get a better
tagging in area that are not a forest (in other landuse
especially). It will gradually help to reduce the quantity of
"misuse" of the other tags "natural=wood" and "landuse=forest"


 Main problem is that many do not consider current usage of
landuse=forest to be a misuse.


It is just how this extremely popular tag is used.


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





--
Vr gr Peter Elderson


___
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] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

Most would agree that it is rather stretching the meaning of forest, but
it's the closest availabl tag to get the tree patches rendered on the map.

2018-06-08 10:54 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 8. Jun 2018 10:43 by lionel.gi...@gmail.com:
>
> - first, add landcover=trees in the renderer (putting it the same as
> landuse=forest probably), just to make a get a better tagging in area that
> are not a forest (in other landuse especially). It will gradually help to
> reduce the quantity of "misuse" of the other tags "natural=wood" and
> "landuse=forest"
>
>
>  Main problem is that many do not consider current usage of landuse=forest
> to be a misuse.
>
>
> It is just how this extremely popular tag is used.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

6. Jun 2018 16:34 by o...@imagico.de :


> The problem here is that it is not just one or two, there is a 
> significant group of people, at least a dozen overall i suppose, who on 
> the wiki consider it their mission to educate mappers on correct use of 
> tags (based on certain ideas regarding key semantics or data model 
> ideas in general) rather than documenting their actual use.  The 
> uselessness of many tag pages on the wiki - 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dgrass 
> >  and 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dtrees 
> >  are good 
> examples here - is largely due to that.  They are filled with talking 
> points from the fight for 'correct' key semantics that leave the mapper 
> looking for substantial information on tag use with nothing but 
> confusion.
>




I made some edits intended to fix this issue:




https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Alanduse%3Dgrass=revision=1615924=1589206
 





https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Landuse=revision=1615922=1601313
 





https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key%3Alanduse=revision=1615920=1557401
 






In general, on spotting the problem on wiki the best way to deal with it is to 
edit it

(it generally takes less time than complaining).

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

8. Jun 2018 10:43 by lionel.gi...@gmail.com :


> - first, add landcover=trees in the renderer (putting it the same as 
> landuse=forest probably), just to make a get a better tagging in area that 
> are not a forest (in other landuse especially). It will gradually help to 
> reduce the quantity of "misuse" of the other tags "natural=wood" and 
> "landuse=forest"




 Main problem is that many do not consider current usage of landuse=forest to 
be a misuse.




It is just how this extremely popular tag is used.

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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 08/06/18 18:42, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

8. Jun 2018 10:40 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :

Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry
and it has 9[sic!] uses. 



I'd quite happily change all 'my' local landuse=forest to
landuse=forestry ... there would then be a lot more than 9. 



 Are you sure that area covered by trees and area used for forestry 
purposes is exactly the same?



Yes. Well some of the time the trees are gone, not from all areas at 
once but from time to time - after all the trees get used to make things 
like houses.


These areas are government owned -
"Forestry Corporation of NSW is the largest manager of commercial native 
and plantation forests in NSW. We manage recreation 
, environmental 
sustainability  and 
renewable timber production 
 in more than 
two million hectares of NSW State forests."
"We are Australia's largest grower of plantation pine 
, 
producing enough timber to construct a quarter of the houses built in 
Australia each year, and produce certified sustainable 
 native 
hardwood timber. A State Owned Corporation with an independent Board of 
Directors 
, 
our sustainability framework 
 
sets out our principles for managing both the forests and our business"


That does not include private property areas that are also used for 
timber production.
And yes they are mapped in OSM .. using copyright material that OSM has 
been granted written approval to use.


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

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

So you would need a commitment from the tagger side not to do that, because
it would invalidate the experiment. Maybe a provision can be made for
cautious transitional measures if the experiment results in a go? Then all
projects are aware and there is no need for undiscussed mechanical edits.


2018-06-08 10:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 8. Jun 2018 10:33 by pelder...@gmail.com:
>
> In this case, if there was a commitment from the renderer side, say to
> plan the rendering of landcover=trees and landcover=grass if the use of the
> key rises above [N] by [deadline], I think that would give taggers the
> choice they now don't have.
>
>
> The problem is that it would strongly encourage undiscussed mechanical
> edits.
>
>
> DWG has already massive queue of damaging edits without encouraging
> additional ones.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Lionel Giard]

>
> Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry and it has
> 9[sic!] uses.
>
I don't see the main argument as good. Any new tag is by definition not
used that much ! And most new mappers follow litteraly the rules of "we
should use the accepted tags in wiki...".


But whatever, as said before, we could take a step by step approach(and
test it) :
- first, add landcover=trees in the renderer (putting it the same as
landuse=forest probably), just to make a get a better tagging in area that
are not a forest (in other landuse especially). It will gradually help to
reduce the quantity of "misuse" of the other tags "natural=wood" and
"landuse=forest" ;
- Then, discuss if we need to add a forestry tag and maybe make a proposal
for it. It could probably just be to create a *new *tag, and still use
"landuse=forest" when it is *unknown* (like for highway=road when we don't
know the type or usage of a road). This would have the advantage of being
backward compatible, just introducing a more precise tags for are with know
forestry use for example.

And most importantly, it would advance the discussion, as most people are
probably just looking for the first steps (having landcover=trees in an
renderer and presets, while the second part interest probably a smaller
fraction of the community (which are more into forest tagging - and i know
that some people are interested in Belgium).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

8. Jun 2018 10:40 by 61sundow...@gmail.com :


>> Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestryand it 
>> has 9[sic!] uses.
> 
> I'd quite happily change all 'my' local landuse=forest to
> landuse=forestry ... there would then be a lot more than 9. 




 Are you sure that area covered by trees and area used for forestry purposes is 
exactly the same?




In my experience there are nearly always differences.

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