Re: [Tagging] windthrow areas (=forest destroyed by winds, =windfall)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 08:44:10 +0100
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> tree is about species, not about age or height 

I am not so sure. Specimen of the same species of plants growing in one
location may be a tree and not a tree in a different location.

For example Pinus Mungo growing in high mountains is typically
considered as bushes and tagged
as natural=scrub as it looks like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinus_mugo#/media/File:Custura_Bucurei.jpg

But plants from the same species may also grow as trees, see for example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pinus_mugo_uncinata_trees.jpg

From what I see trees are defined rather by structure or function
rather than by species (though, as it is typical "there is no
universally recognised precise definition of what a tree is, either
botanically or in common language."*)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree#Definition

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

Re: [Tagging] windthrow areas (=forest destroyed by winds, =windfall)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 16. Mar 2018, at 22:47, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> I would not expect area where no plant is higher than 50 cm to be
> described as forest. I think that using "landcover=trees" would be
> misleading in this case.



tree is about species, not about age or height 

Would you call a baby “human”?

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

Re: [Tagging] windthrow areas (=forest destroyed by winds, =windfall)

[Vao Matua]

A young forest is still a forest.

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 07:02:07 +1100
> Frank Warner <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Would the trees naturally regenerate?
>
> > There should be seeds left behind by the old trees that would grow to
> > replace the old trees. So the area should be covered with trees ..
> > young trees but still trees.
> >
> > I much prefer landcover=* to natural and would use landcover=trees
> > for this situation.
>
> I would not expect area where no plant is higher than 50 cm to be
> described as forest. I think that using "landcover=trees" would be
> misleading in this case.
>
> ___
> 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] windthrow areas (=forest destroyed by winds, =windfall)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Sat, 17 Mar 2018 07:02:07 +1100
Frank Warner <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would the trees naturally regenerate?

> There should be seeds left behind by the old trees that would grow to
> replace the old trees. So the area should be covered with trees ..
> young trees but still trees.
> 
> I much prefer landcover=* to natural and would use landcover=trees
> for this situation.

I would not expect area where no plant is higher than 50 cm to be
described as forest. I think that using "landcover=trees" would be
misleading in this case.

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

Re: [Tagging] windthrow areas (=forest destroyed by winds, =windfall)

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2018 17:26:27 -0400
Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> I can understand the desire for distinct tagging.
> 
> Certainly, it's much tougher to navigate a field of blowdown / prone
> forest like
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14738421885/
> than it is to walk through a standing forest.

Also - it may be useful for orientation and during hiking trip one may
prefer to route going through existing forest rather area where forest
was destroyed. 

> Nevertheless, they are both landuse=forest (if managed for forestry)

Many of areas that may be tagged this way are not managed for
forestry but in protected areas.

Areas managed for forestry are typically cleaned-up and replanted
relatively quickly.

Note that typical usage and interpretation of landuse=forest is 
"area covered by trees" not "area managed for forestry" (though I
know that there are competing approaches - see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest ).

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

Re: [Tagging] windthrow areas (=forest destroyed by winds, =windfall)

[Kevin Kenny]

I can understand the desire for distinct tagging.

Certainly, it's much tougher to navigate a field of blowdown / prone
forest like
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14738421885/
than it is to walk through a standing forest.

Nevertheless, they are both landuse=forest (if managed for forestry)
and landcover=trees or natural=wood (depending on local practice).
I don't know of an existing distinct tag for such a region.
landcover=trees trees:windthrow=yes, maybe?

There are similar issues for low-lying areas in my part of the world.
They are subject to cyclic beaver activity, so in any given year they
may be water, mud flat, wet meadow, alder thicket, or wood. But
it's pretty predictable where the beavers will eventually return to,
and there are often well-defined bypass trails around frequently
flooded basins. I've no idea what to do about those, either;
I have tagged a few as 'swamp' simply because it was the
least wrong tagging that I could find.

Similarly, on relatively permanent beaver ponds, I've occasionally
put 'man_made=dam' at the outlet; again, this is a 'least wrong'
solution. It's unquestionably a dam. Not all dams are man-made,
but functionally, it's pretty much the same thing. It holds back the
water and offers a foot crossing for the stream - at least for
those who are not above borrowing the way from Castor
canadensis, its owner.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/14299650593


On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Frank Warner <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would the trees naturally regenerate?
> There should be seeds left behind by the old trees that would grow to
> replace the old trees. So the area should be covered with trees .. young
> trees but still trees.
>
> I much prefer landcover=* to natural and would use landcover=trees for this
> situation.
>
> On 16 March 2018 at 07:15, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
>>
>> I am looking for a way to tag areas that used to be a forest but
>> all/almost all trees were fallen by a strong wind.
>>
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wiatro%C5%82om_T_26.jpg or
>>
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20180315194959/https://r-scale-80.dcs.redcdn.pl/scale/o2/tvn/web-content/m/p1/i/270edd69788dce200a3b395a6da6fdb7/d2ac-1c85-4868-b703-9e570d15bb73.png?type=1=0=1/1=1/1=1/1=1/1=970=546=80
>> and
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20180315194712/http://ocdn.eu/ebooksimages-transforms/1/RtqktoARGh0dHA6Ly9vY2RuLmV1L25ld3N3ZWVrLXdlYi9hODRmYWI4YS01OTAzLTRlNDMtOGVhZC1jOTBiNDhjZGZhZmEuanBnkZMCzQNcAA
>> are good depictions of this situations.
>>
>> Sometimes such are is relatively quickly cleaned up and new forest is
>> planted but in some cases (for example in Tatra mountains) such windthrow
>> areas are staying for a long time (years, maybe longer) so tagging this
>> makes sense.
>>
>> I looked at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=windthrow and it
>> seems that nobody tagged this kind of object.
>> I found https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=windfall but with
>> really low usage
>> I looked for windfall and windthrow in archives of tagging mailing list.
>>
>> I used natural=windthrow, but maybe there is an existing tag already used
>> for that?
>>
>> Overpass query with all tagged areas (currently it is just 8 areas):
>> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/x2O
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

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

Re: [Tagging] windthrow areas (=forest destroyed by winds, =windfall)

[Frank Warner]

Would the trees naturally regenerate?
There should be seeds left behind by the old trees that would grow to
replace the old trees. So the area should be covered with trees .. young
trees but still trees.

I much prefer landcover=* to natural and would use landcover=trees for this
situation.

On 16 March 2018 at 07:15, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:

> I am looking for a way to tag areas that used to be a forest but
> all/almost all trees were fallen by a strong wind.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wiatro%C5%82om_T_26.jpg or
> http://web.archive.org/web/20180315194959/https://r-
> scale-80.dcs.redcdn.pl/scale/o2/tvn/web-content/m/p1/i/
> 270edd69788dce200a3b395a6da6fdb7/d2ac-1c85-4868-b703-
> 9e570d15bb73.png?type=1=0=1/1=1/1&
> srcw=1/1=1/1=970=546=80
> and http://web.archive.org/web/20180315194712/http://ocdn.eu/
> ebooksimages-transforms/1/RtqktoARGh0dHA6Ly9vY2RuLmV1L25
> ld3N3ZWVrLXdlYi9hODRmYWI4YS01OTAzLTRlNDMtOGVhZC1jOTBiNDhjZGZ
> hZmEuanBnkZMCzQNcAA
> are good depictions of this situations.
>
> Sometimes such are is relatively quickly cleaned up and new forest is
> planted but in some cases (for example in Tatra mountains) such windthrow
> areas are staying for a long time (years, maybe longer) so tagging this
> makes sense.
>
> I looked at https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=windthrow and it
> seems that nobody tagged this kind of object.
> I found https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=windfall but with
> really low usage
> I looked for windfall and windthrow in archives of tagging mailing list.
>
> I used natural=windthrow, but maybe there is an existing tag already used
> for that?
>
> Overpass query with all tagged areas (currently it is just 8 areas):
> http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/x2O
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging