Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural worldmapping ...
On 09/08/2009, at 8:17 AM, Jason Cunningham wrote: > Wood and Forest have not had clear definitions for centuries in the > UK, and as Mike Harris states the trees within Forests were > incidental (the famous Sherwood Forest was mostly heathland). Just because it's called a "Forest" doesn't mean that it should be tagged as landuse=forest. I know several a few Lakes without water, and Beaches that no longer have a beach. > Looking at the discussion Mike Harris has already suggested the tags > I would suggest, but I may as well repeat them > natural=woodland land covered with trees (Minimum Crown Cover = 20%) > landuse=forestry Does landuse=forestry mean that it is a managed forest (like landuse=forest was supposed to), or that it is an area used by the timber industry? For the latter you could make the distinction between natural=wood;landuse=forestry (old-growth) and landuse=farm;produce=tree (plantation). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural worldmapping ...
On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Jason Cunningham wrote: > Looking at the discussion Mike Harris has already suggested the tags I > would suggest, but I may as well repeat them > natural=woodland land covered with trees (Minimum Crown Cover = 20%) Sounds like a good idea to me. > landuse=forestry > I am not so sure about this. Combining landuse and natural is not normally done (?) and I think forestry can be assumed outside of conservation areas. - Gusatv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural worldmapping ...
You cant confidently split trees into two groups, although Ordnance Survey have tried to. I believe in the future there will be a desire to give areas of woodland a tag that describes the type of woodland. But there is not rush and Evergreen, Deciduous and Mixed seem like a safe start Jason Cunningham 2009/8/8 Mike Harris > Sympathy from a pom! Deciduous and evergreen are orthogonal. Coniferous is > not even quite a sub-set of evergreen as there are a few deciduous > conifers, > e.g. larch. So OSM to use evergreen vs. deciduous and show its innate > superiority to OS? > > > Mike Harris > > -Original Message- > From: Liz [mailto:ed...@billiau.net] > Sent: 22 July 2009 21:38 > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural > worldmapping ... > > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Alice Kaerast wrote: > > There is also another property which hasn't been considered - type of > > trees. Evergreen vs. Deciduous might be nice to know. Ordnance > > survey maps differentiate between coniferous and non-coniferous and > > has symbols for coppice and orchard. > > Another Venn diagram problem. > Our trees are neither coniferous or deciduous, and the alternate is "mixed" > > Liz > living in country covered in mallee, casuarina and occasional eucalypt > > > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural worldmapping ...
Since I joined the OSM community to map an area of woodland I help manage, the use of "landuse=forest and natural=wood" has frustrated me. I had meant to raise the issue and to try and find out whether it was possible to improve these tags. I had actually planned to do this month so its a shame I missed the start of this discussion. Wood and Forest have not had clear definitions for centuries in the UK, and as Mike Harris states the trees within Forests were incidental (the famous Sherwood Forest was mostly heathland). Mike Harris also supplies the solution that has been used for years to describe areas of land dominated by trees, the word is "Woodland". If you wish to learn more on the subject of areas of land covered in trees I suggest reading the following book "Woodlands - Oliver Rackham" (amazon link<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Woodlands-New-Naturalist-Oliver-Rackham/dp/0007202431> ) Looking at the discussion Mike Harris has already suggested the tags I would suggest, but I may as well repeat them natural=woodland land covered with trees (Minimum Crown Cover = 20%) landuse=forestry Jason Cunningham 2009/8/7 Mike Harris > Prefer > > Landuse=forestry (not 'forest') and natural=woodland; maybe also a tag for > the administrative areas such as US National Forests. Then other tags can > take care of the detail. > > Mike Harris > > -Original Message- > From: David Lynch [mailto:djly...@gmail.com] > Sent: 20 July 2009 19:10 > To: Tom Chance > Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural > worldmapping ... > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:59, Tom Chance wrote: > > On Monday 20 Jul 2009 17:08:30 Andrew Ayre wrote: > >> I've been adding the national forests in Arizona, and the Wikipedia > >> definition doesn't fit too well. There are areas here that are inside > >> an administrative boundary called a National Forest where the trees > >> are very sparse - 10s of meters between them. Elsewhere in the forest > >> the trees are dense but it is a gradual transition from sparse to > >> dense that could take 50 miles or more to travel through. > > > > The point is that we won't ever find a useful correspondence between > > real "out there in the world" uses of "Forest" and "Wood" (which are > > already very inconsistent), everyone's individual perceptions of the > > difference, dictionary / encyclopedia / professional definitions, and > > the reality of the slightly chaotic OSM tagging. > > > > The division of landuse and natural, forest and wood, is utterly > pointless. > > > > Hence my proposal to only use natural=wood, and allow further tags to > > designate the type of tree, whether it's used for commercial logging, > etc. > > IMO, national forests fall into a third category, which neither your > proposal nor current tagging covers - land which is designated by > government > as a forest which is preserved or managed under special restrictions. The > trees don't necessarily stop at the boundary, and it is possible that there > are areas within the boundary which aren't covered in dense trees. It > probably needs some kind of boundary= tag. > > I'm also thinking that deprecating both landuse=forest and natural=wood > might be a good idea if this goes forward. Replace it with natural=trees, > which is just as self-explanitory, and which (to this particular mapper) > sounds like a better fit for small clumps of <10 trees than "wood." > -- > David J. Lynch > djly...@gmail.com > > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural worldmapping ...
Sympathy from a pom! Deciduous and evergreen are orthogonal. Coniferous is not even quite a sub-set of evergreen as there are a few deciduous conifers, e.g. larch. So OSM to use evergreen vs. deciduous and show its innate superiority to OS? Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Liz [mailto:ed...@billiau.net] Sent: 22 July 2009 21:38 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural worldmapping ... On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Alice Kaerast wrote: > There is also another property which hasn't been considered - type of > trees. Evergreen vs. Deciduous might be nice to know. Ordnance > survey maps differentiate between coniferous and non-coniferous and > has symbols for coppice and orchard. Another Venn diagram problem. Our trees are neither coniferous or deciduous, and the alternate is "mixed" Liz living in country covered in mallee, casuarina and occasional eucalypt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural worldmapping ...
On Aug 7, 2009, at 12:44 AM, Mike Harris wrote: > Prefer > > Landuse=forestry (not 'forest') and natural=woodland; maybe also a > tag for > the administrative areas such as US National Forests. Then other > tags can > take care of the detail. > some US National forests are nearly tree free. We shouldn't tag them with any key containing wood or forest. as you point out these are administrative areas and they should be tagged as such. Even on the signs it's stated "... land for many uses ..." landuse, natural, sport, leisure tags must be individual to the specific use areas. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural worldmapping ...
Prefer Landuse=forestry (not 'forest') and natural=woodland; maybe also a tag for the administrative areas such as US National Forests. Then other tags can take care of the detail. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: David Lynch [mailto:djly...@gmail.com] Sent: 20 July 2009 19:10 To: Tom Chance Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural worldmapping ... On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:59, Tom Chance wrote: > On Monday 20 Jul 2009 17:08:30 Andrew Ayre wrote: >> I've been adding the national forests in Arizona, and the Wikipedia >> definition doesn't fit too well. There are areas here that are inside >> an administrative boundary called a National Forest where the trees >> are very sparse - 10s of meters between them. Elsewhere in the forest >> the trees are dense but it is a gradual transition from sparse to >> dense that could take 50 miles or more to travel through. > > The point is that we won't ever find a useful correspondence between > real "out there in the world" uses of "Forest" and "Wood" (which are > already very inconsistent), everyone's individual perceptions of the > difference, dictionary / encyclopedia / professional definitions, and > the reality of the slightly chaotic OSM tagging. > > The division of landuse and natural, forest and wood, is utterly pointless. > > Hence my proposal to only use natural=wood, and allow further tags to > designate the type of tree, whether it's used for commercial logging, etc. IMO, national forests fall into a third category, which neither your proposal nor current tagging covers - land which is designated by government as a forest which is preserved or managed under special restrictions. The trees don't necessarily stop at the boundary, and it is possible that there are areas within the boundary which aren't covered in dense trees. It probably needs some kind of boundary= tag. I'm also thinking that deprecating both landuse=forest and natural=wood might be a good idea if this goes forward. Replace it with natural=trees, which is just as self-explanitory, and which (to this particular mapper) sounds like a better fit for small clumps of <10 trees than "wood." -- David J. Lynch djly...@gmail.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural worldmapping ...
Agree. Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: 21 July 2009 02:51 To: Tyler Cc: Talk Openstreetmap Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural worldmapping ... 2009/7/20 Tyler : >> What would you then use for a 200 square kilometer continous forest? > > landuse=nature_reserve actually I wouldn't use landuse for natural reserves, they are boundaries (similar to political/administrative ones), within you can find several different landuses. They should be rendered as outline (or hatch) but not as solid fill. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
