Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

[Warin]

On 27-Oct-17 04:51 PM, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote:

On 27.10.17 00:49, Dave F wrote:

[...]
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area of trees which hasn't 
been managed in one way or another by humans; especially in the 
Western world. [...]


There is a theory nowadays that woods should be left alone to natural 
cycles which may last hundreds of years. At least that a forest is not 
a park where everything should be cleaned up and tidy. Dead wood in a 
forest is the food for numerous insects. These insects are the basis 
of a biodiversity pyramid. Here is some information on it: 
http://blogs.helsinki.fi/deadwoodmeeting/files/2016/02/Barbalat_dead-wood-insects_web.pdf


Best regards,

O.


For thousands of years the Australian Aborigines have used fire to 
manage their lands.
There is a view that current fire dangers in Australia are a result of 
the lack of regular fire burning practices.
There is also the view that these burning practices encourage native 
vegetation.
And yet another view that these burning practices would discourage 
introduced weeds.
There are many who want regular patterned fire burns conducted for the 
above reasons.


Having said that, there are at several areas that have not been managed 
by humans by fire for many, if not thousands of, years - one where the 
Wollemi Pine was found and a few where cycads remain in central and 
northern Australia.


--
My view;

The landuse key is clearly to tag the use of the land by humans.

The natural key is unclear - it seams to be for both things made by 
nature and things made by man! To me this confused all and the key 
should be discouraged.
It should be replaced by the keys landcover and landform, these have no 
implication of human or nature but simply describe the type of feature.



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

[Oleksiy Muzalyev]

On 27.10.17 00:49, Dave F wrote:

[...]
I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area of trees which hasn't 
been managed in one way or another by humans; especially in the 
Western world. [...]


There is a theory nowadays that woods should be left alone to natural 
cycles which may last hundreds of years. At least that a forest is not a 
park where everything should be cleaned up and tidy. Dead wood in a 
forest is the food for numerous insects. These insects are the basis of 
a biodiversity pyramid. Here is some information on it: 
http://blogs.helsinki.fi/deadwoodmeeting/files/2016/02/Barbalat_dead-wood-insects_web.pdf


Best regards,

O.


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

[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests

[Dave F]

(Split to a separate thread)

The woods/forest problem is one of the worst tagging cock-ups in OSM. 
It's bad enough when alternate values are used to differentiate what is 
actually the same object, but in this case it's also the key!


I think you'd be hard pressed to find any area of trees which hasn't 
been managed in one way or another by humans; especially in the Western 
world. Even in the depths of the Amazonian rainforest or Borneo the 
locals use wood for tools/fire/building etc.


Ignoring the landcover argument for a moment, all areas of trees should 
be primarily tagged as natural=wood. As with other entities, any further 
details which gives clarity should be provided in sub-tags.


Approach 2 is the appropriate example: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest,


The four render options on the website render wood & forest primary tags 
the same


DaveF

--
On 26/10/2017 13:37, Janko Mihelić wrote:,> A problem i find is with 
landuse=forest. Formally, those are zones that are used for growing 
trees. But practically in OSM, that tag is used for any land that is 
covered with trees. So formally, landuse=forest shouldn't overlap with 
other zones, but practically, until a new tag (landcover=trees) is 
rendered, this rule isn't going to be followed.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

[OSM-talk] Woods Vs Forests (Was Topology rules)

[Dave F]

Started a new thread as it's gone of subject.

DaveF.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 26.10.2017 o 23:36, Warin pisze:
While natural=wood renders, I also tag them as landcover=trees as that 
is more truthful of what is there.
So these tree areas get two tags from me until such time as landcover 
is rendered then I will remove the natural tag.


If you mean standard tile layer (osm-carto), landcover=* tag is far from 
being accepted:


https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2548#issuecomment-330002296

--
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

[Warin]

On 27-Oct-17 12:00 AM, Joseph Reeves wrote:


A problem i find is with landuse=forest. Formally, those are zones
that are used for growing trees. But practically in OSM, that tag
is used for any land that is covered with trees. So formally,
landuse=forest shouldn't overlap with other zones, but
practically, until a new tag (landcover=trees) is rendered, this
rule isn't going to be followed.


Getting off topic, I think you want natural=wood :

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwood


While natural=wood renders, I also tag them as landcover=trees as that 
is more truthful of what is there.
So these tree areas get two tags from me until such time as landcover is 
rendered then I will remove the natural tag.




On 26 October 2017 at 13:37, Janko Mihelić > wrote:


I like the idea of formalizing OSM topology!

An example: power lines should share nodes with nothing except
power towers, portals and buildings (substation buildings).

A problem i find is with landuse=forest. Formally, those are zones
that are used for growing trees. But practically in OSM, that tag
is used for any land that is covered with trees. So formally,
landuse=forest shouldn't overlap with other zones, but
practically, until a new tag (landcover=trees) is rendered, this
rule isn't going to be followed.

Janko

sri, 25. lis 2017. u 18:41 Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> napisao je:



sent from a phone

> On 25. Oct 2017, at 17:36, Gaurav Thapa
mailto:gthapa.w...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> In Nepal we have been trying to make sure that each
constructed building has its own footprint and is not
connected to a neighbouring structure via a shared wall. We do
this as in reality this is the case as each building structure
though built next to each other has its own footprint
(independent foundation).


yes, you can find both situations: a single dividing wall used
by both neighboring buildings (in Europe this occurs mostly
with medieval buildings), or each building has its own walls
(and foundations), but without a significant space between
them (e.g. 2 cm of insulating material).

I would treat both situations the same and use shared nodes,
but maybe wouldn’t object if someone purposefully mapped the
latter as 2 almost-touching buildings, although the osm
building ways usually describe the footprint of the completed
building (i.e. with facades, cladding etc.) and not the raw
load bearing structure.

cheers,
Martin
___



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

[Richard]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:50:40PM +0300, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> Hello
> 
>   For a long time I wanted to hear opinion on the topic of topology rules.
> 
>   By "topology rules" here I mean just simple rules such as:
>   * polygon X should not overlap polygon Y
>   * polygon X should always be above polygon Y
>   * point X should be not further from line Y than D
>   etc.

you are thinking too abstract and trying to do too many things
at a time. 


>   * it would be easier for cartographers or the like. They would not
> have to guess which polygons should be above which ones in drawing
> order, for example when creating garmin maps it is not always possible
> to control the order of layers, so we have a question which goes
> first: forest or water? 

quite clearly described here: 
  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:layer#Data_consumers

Water and forest is allowed to overlap. OSM landcover model is insufficient
and mildly broken. Fixing it is not so easy.

Richard


pgpAtcSqTx1_j.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

[Joseph Reeves]

A problem i find is with landuse=forest. Formally, those are zones that are
used for growing trees. But practically in OSM, that tag is used for any
land that is covered with trees. So formally, landuse=forest shouldn't
overlap with other zones, but practically, until a new tag
(landcover=trees) is rendered, this rule isn't going to be followed.


Getting off topic, I think you want natural=wood :

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwood

On 26 October 2017 at 13:37, Janko Mihelić  wrote:

> I like the idea of formalizing OSM topology!
>
> An example: power lines should share nodes with nothing except power
> towers, portals and buildings (substation buildings).
>
> A problem i find is with landuse=forest. Formally, those are zones that
> are used for growing trees. But practically in OSM, that tag is used for
> any land that is covered with trees. So formally, landuse=forest shouldn't
> overlap with other zones, but practically, until a new tag
> (landcover=trees) is rendered, this rule isn't going to be followed.
>
> Janko
>
> sri, 25. lis 2017. u 18:41 Martin Koppenhoefer 
> napisao je:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> > On 25. Oct 2017, at 17:36, Gaurav Thapa  wrote:
>> >
>> > In Nepal we have been trying to make sure that each constructed
>> building has its own footprint and is not connected to a neighbouring
>> structure via a shared wall. We do this as in reality this is the case as
>> each building structure though built next to each other has its own
>> footprint (independent foundation).
>>
>>
>> yes, you can find both situations: a single dividing wall used by both
>> neighboring buildings (in Europe this occurs mostly with medieval
>> buildings), or each building has its own walls (and foundations), but
>> without a significant space between them (e.g. 2 cm of insulating material).
>>
>> I would treat both situations the same and use shared nodes, but maybe
>> wouldn’t object if someone purposefully mapped the latter as 2
>> almost-touching buildings, although the osm building ways usually describe
>> the footprint of the completed building (i.e. with facades, cladding etc.)
>> and not the raw load bearing structure.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Topology rules

[Janko Mihelić]

I like the idea of formalizing OSM topology!

An example: power lines should share nodes with nothing except power
towers, portals and buildings (substation buildings).

A problem i find is with landuse=forest. Formally, those are zones that are
used for growing trees. But practically in OSM, that tag is used for any
land that is covered with trees. So formally, landuse=forest shouldn't
overlap with other zones, but practically, until a new tag
(landcover=trees) is rendered, this rule isn't going to be followed.

Janko

sri, 25. lis 2017. u 18:41 Martin Koppenhoefer 
napisao je:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 25. Oct 2017, at 17:36, Gaurav Thapa  wrote:
> >
> > In Nepal we have been trying to make sure that each constructed building
> has its own footprint and is not connected to a neighbouring structure via
> a shared wall. We do this as in reality this is the case as each building
> structure though built next to each other has its own footprint
> (independent foundation).
>
>
> yes, you can find both situations: a single dividing wall used by both
> neighboring buildings (in Europe this occurs mostly with medieval
> buildings), or each building has its own walls (and foundations), but
> without a significant space between them (e.g. 2 cm of insulating material).
>
> I would treat both situations the same and use shared nodes, but maybe
> wouldn’t object if someone purposefully mapped the latter as 2
> almost-touching buildings, although the osm building ways usually describe
> the footprint of the completed building (i.e. with facades, cladding etc.)
> and not the raw load bearing structure.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk