Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
Not only on Arizona ... In the UK a 'forest' was originally a hunting area, often owned by the king or a duke etc. who had exclusive hunting rights. The presence or absence of trees was incidental. Some of this terminology survives e.g. in the 'New Forest' in Hampshire where there is a wooded area but also a lot of unwooded. The Forest of Mare and Mondrum (and its more modern partial successor, the Mersey Forest) in NW England are both almost treeless - although in a few hundred years the plan is to reafforest them ... Mike Harris -Original Message- From: Andrew Ayre [mailto:a...@britishideas.com] Sent: 20 July 2009 17:09 To: osm Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ... 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. I.e. the only clear boundary of the forest is the administrative boundary, not what it looks like on the ground. Andy Barnett, Phillip wrote: > +1 > > I believe the real problem was in the original creation of the tag, > landuse = forest. This should, in my opinion, have been landuse = > forestry, which would then have enabled the natural = wood tag to be > used at the same time, or even natural = forest > > > Also, from Wikipedia, > > "A forest is an area with a high density of trees" "Forests are differentiated from woodlands by the extent of canopy coverage: in a forest, the branches and the foliage of separate trees often meet or interlock, although there can be gaps of varying sizes within an area referred to as forest. A woodland has a more continuously open canopy, with trees spaced further apart, which allows more sunlight to penetrate to the ground between them." > > Cheers > > > > > PHILLIP BARNETT > SERVER MANAGER > > 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD > LONDON > WC1X 8XZ > UNITED KINGDOM > T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 > F > E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk > http://WWW.ITN.CO.UK > P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? > -Original Message- > > From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org > [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Tom Chance > Sent: 20 July 2009 15:43 > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ... > > > So putting to one side arguments about the inherent value of trees, > British arboreal imperialism and Xybot tricks... > > Why do we care if something is a wood or a forest? Why do we care > whether or not it's managed, and whether we all have the same sense of > what "managed" means? > > Back in the good old days of stream vs river there was a clear need > for maps to distinguish between them. We now have a nice range of > water features from riverbank and river to stream and drain. > > Surely the basic, universal need is "there are some trees here, > they're called Sherwood Forest"? Evoke natural=wood (lakes and beaches > also fall in between managed and unmanaged land but are marked as > natural) > > In addition you can add in: > > * type=deciduous (so we can all see what sorts of trees to expect) > * landuse=forestry (so we know if it's managed for commercial reasons) > > I'd really like to nominate someone like Nick Whitelegg as Countryside > Tsar for a day, so he could work out the different basic features we > need to know about in the countryside and an appropriate tagging > schema. Then, as always, a combination of wiki documentation, Mapnik & > ti...@home rules, Xybot mischief and peer education could disseminate this sensible approach. > > Every time I try to map a walk up a hill I get depressed by the lack > of comprehensible tags supported by renderers to get the map anywhere > near as useful as Ordnance Survey. > > Regards, > Tom > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > Please Note: > > > > Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not > necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. > This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely > for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. > If you have received this email in error, please notify >
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:24:10 +1000, Liz wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Tyler wrote: >> Liz, >> I would classify most eucalyptus spp. as deciduous (though judging by >> your >> genus compositions you're in Australia, and I don't know what the species >> do there), and probably classify casuarina spp as coniferous... but >> that's >> a bad classification system. That's like saying "this apple is green, >> that >> grapefruit is citrus." >> There are deciduous conifers, and evergreen broadleafs. Coniferous >> doesn't >> even account for all of the needleleaf trees.. The wiki should probably >> be >> suggesting deciduous, evergreen and mixed. . . >> >> Adopting the UNEP-WCMC broad categories [1] would make much more sense >> than >> the current bad wiki suggestions. and adopting the more specific >> categories >> would cover a vast majority of forests. >> The division between coniferous and decidous in Norwegian (european?) maps was originally interesting from an economical point of view, as the value and usage of pine/sprouce lumber and oak/maple is very different. But as OSM might have even more different usages than old trade maps from northern europe, maybe we should tag in a whole different way? As I now live in Brazil, where I have less then halve a clue what the different types are called, the best for me would be to identify the types of wood by what I can see (broadleaf/needleleaf + evergreen=yes/no + tropical/subtropical/temperated/subartic maybe?) -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
Liz: > the broad categories in the UNEP-WCMC system make sense but the terms don't cover "Mallee" and the most common type of surviving Australian forest "dry sclerophyll" is a term very few mappers would be familiar with. The UNEP-WCMC spec specifically says "Temperate broadleaf and mixed" covers "the sclerophyllous forests of Australia." I would call both the ecucalypts and eucalyptus broadleaf, the acacia is pretty much a broadlead, and the mixed allows for most of the other stuff to be As both Martin and Tom said, add what's needed to the wiki and the renderers will eventually catch up. I would say starting with the UNEP-WCMC would work nicely, (though it looks like all Australian forests would be broadly classified as the same thing--excluding the "sparse trees and parkland" and "forest plantations") then drilling down to continent/subcontinent specific forest classifications would work. -Tyler ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:59:41 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/7/23 Liz : >> The end result of my quick check is that >> 1. European or northern hemisphere categories of forest are incompatible >> with >> Australian flora. >> 2. Standardised category names may be meaningless to mappers who aren't >> going >> to use them if they don't understand them. > > can't really see a problem: it's a wiki. Just add what you need to > describe your surroundings. So long as we start with "natural=trees" which renders as a big green area and has the name (where given) in the middle, there's no problem. We can have wood=deciduous and wood=eucalyptus with appropriate tiled symbols, and if somebody uses wood=martian then it just defaults to a green area until we have a new symbol for alien arborea. Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
2009/7/23 Liz : > The end result of my quick check is that > 1. European or northern hemisphere categories of forest are incompatible with > Australian flora. > 2. Standardised category names may be meaningless to mappers who aren't going > to use them if they don't understand them. can't really see a problem: it's a wiki. Just add what you need to describe your surroundings. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Tyler wrote: > Liz, > I would classify most eucalyptus spp. as deciduous (though judging by your > genus compositions you're in Australia, and I don't know what the species > do there), and probably classify casuarina spp as coniferous... but that's > a bad classification system. That's like saying "this apple is green, that > grapefruit is citrus." > There are deciduous conifers, and evergreen broadleafs. Coniferous doesn't > even account for all of the needleleaf trees.. The wiki should probably be > suggesting deciduous, evergreen and mixed. . . > > Adopting the UNEP-WCMC broad categories [1] would make much more sense than > the current bad wiki suggestions. and adopting the more specific categories > would cover a vast majority of forests. > > [1] http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/fp_background.htm# Yes, I am in Au, and our flora (and fauna) are unique. None of our standard stuff is deciduous. Deciduous stuff from other realms has been planted here. So I expect that all eucalypts are evergreen. Casuarina aren't coniferous as they are actually flowering plants, in which the flower *resembles* a brown cone. the broad categories in the UNEP-WCMC system make sense but the terms don't cover "Mallee" and the most common type of surviving Australian forest "dry sclerophyll" is a term very few mappers would be familiar with. This is a listing of Australian forest types from the legend of a map http://www.australianforests.org.au/pdf/forest_type.pdf Acacia Callitris Casuarina Eucalypt Mallee Eucalypt woodland Eucalypt open Eucalypt closed Mangrove Melaleuca Rainforest Other Plantation descriptive work http://www.australianforests.org.au/australiasforests/forest-types.htm and http://www.daff.gov.au/brs/publications/series/forest-profiles And I had to look up callitris, to find out that is a mere 20km to a large callitris forest from home. The end result of my quick check is that 1. European or northern hemisphere categories of forest are incompatible with Australian flora. 2. Standardised category names may be meaningless to mappers who aren't going to use them if they don't understand them. -- BOFH excuse #166: /pub/lunch ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:37:32 +1000, Liz wrote: > 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" (not knowing a great deal about tree classification) Can we not just add other values for wood= to allow nice little tiling icons for other tree types? Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
--- On Wed, 22/7/09, Liz wrote: > Another Venn diagram problem. > Our trees are neither coniferous or deciduous, and the > alternate is "mixed" Add to that Gum trees are evergreen :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
Liz, I would classify most eucalyptus spp. as deciduous (though judging by your genus compositions you're in Australia, and I don't know what the species do there), and probably classify casuarina spp as coniferous... but that's a bad classification system. That's like saying "this apple is green, that grapefruit is citrus." There are deciduous conifers, and evergreen broadleafs. Coniferous doesn't even account for all of the needleleaf trees.. The wiki should probably be suggesting deciduous, evergreen and mixed. . . Adopting the UNEP-WCMC broad categories [1] would make much more sense than the current bad wiki suggestions. and adopting the more specific categories would cover a vast majority of forests. [1] http://www.unep-wcmc.org/forest/fp_background.htm# ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
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 world mapping ...
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Alice Kaerast wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:48:17 +0100 > Andy Allan wrote: > > >> >> So we have (at least) three orthogonal properties >> a) Are there trees, swamp, mud or rocks on the ground (land cover) >> b) Is the area used for forestry, recreation or military training >> (land use) c) Is the area administered or designated or named as a >> "National Forest" "State Park" "National Park" "World Heritage Site" >> or some other such designation (administrative) >> > > 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. Ah, that's just sub-typing of category A though - you can't have deciduous rocks or coniferous mud, so "type of trees" is a subcategory of "land cover is trees" rather than an independent (i.e. orthogonal) property. Doesn't mean that it's not important though! Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
2009/7/22 Alice Kaerast : > 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. no, it already is considered and even rendered: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wood%3Dconiferous/deciduous/mixed cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
--- On Wed, 22/7/09, 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. Wasn't there a discussion on species naming a week or so ago? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:48:17 +0100 Andy Allan wrote: > > So we have (at least) three orthogonal properties > a) Are there trees, swamp, mud or rocks on the ground (land cover) > b) Is the area used for forestry, recreation or military training > (land use) c) Is the area administered or designated or named as a > "National Forest" "State Park" "National Park" "World Heritage Site" > or some other such designation (administrative) > 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. - -- Alice -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJKZyl5AAoJEK/Rrn18ahlCdOkP/3H+ARGySotl4kQhj8DKUfKi YcyEidcVmqiMDDN8AbMcijFTDhmWB2dGpur5vG9XixwYUNvqfLXSGN0YvSIyavMt 43DLLO/TQCxGx+wlXTKhzf+KDyPn1TSD0taF572HtXA3q1T549LF1LhP78/Yux8J j6jVuCKiJDMHyafS5FpvEYBYVDkk12wBVc32e3Va6sn5W/hoIH9raPF1/4cpQBBj bhkYnuhxCZJnRnfpWY6eQdKQ27X2lNNDSexLXwnHeymTY7wjRmtMRFkJPBuAl4X6 vkrIT6yPKxqdQmkYswSV+NvXhRuRdq7ibvdVqjO7WLJA81m1pAM5Q8xnpgE8c1ob PZkjitdavbFazG/2Ix55C5yPI1u7Z3nWkmV5k2ohDQDvL1FJsXz2JvnBzyYuD5v8 vQrDcJOUa/4jtZ9l42zP2+PYBZkyj+ktvoQNofa0CEeKRsmWYW6Jmo+czrEm2gpl dU3dcZnTwUjDLvsFNmXNTPLoD1wim2o/+Oz5X02i+lJJ/rrvqORdGE/fm488yPV7 /dyzsW/z6edoETgHt1687aBRNaqYmBKTtMwoMtEMbrbFqeoIC86PUG7P1vpKd6Iv OlwV/urVuNajvAmADoJGNbxPtXpDVlRXSTEvKYG1Cp85bcocd1wIrWwj39/xuEQe gVL+TK61bHW/swgW4BlM =XYIi -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Tyler wrote: > eh... I'm less fond of this, just because I'm not sold on there being 1 and > only 1 land use for an area but I have no supporting evidence to back up my > iffy feeling Many areas-with-trees in the UK are used for both forestry and mountain biking. And I mean that the owners of the land (the "Forestry Commission") build and maintain mountain biking and other recreational facilities among the trees; such facilities are rudely interrupted every few decades when the trees need a bit of a makeover. So we have (at least) three orthogonal properties a) Are there trees, swamp, mud or rocks on the ground (land cover) b) Is the area used for forestry, recreation or military training (land use) c) Is the area administered or designated or named as a "National Forest" "State Park" "National Park" "World Heritage Site" or some other such designation (administrative) None of those imply what goes on in the other two categories. Well, that's my two cents. Cheers, Andy P.S. Discussions of the value in requiring the guys who make timber also being mandated to "benefit society" is an exercise left to talk-gb@ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > yes, land_use=forestry perhaps implies land_cover=trees, Not when they've all just been chopped down :-) land_use=forestry land_cover = mud_treestumps_and_woodchips But seriously, there's a difference between an area being used for forestry and an area covered in trees, and in the Venn diagram there's no empty sets. Which makes them orthoginal. Fair enough; i see your point and the nerd in me wanted full orthogonality anyway. IMHO we need more venn diagram thinking in OSM. pgp5O7oCTIH0f.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Greg Troxel wrote: > yes, land_use=forestry perhaps implies land_cover=trees, Not when they've all just been chopped down :-) land_use=forestry land_cover = mud_treestumps_and_woodchips But seriously, there's a difference between an area being used for forestry and an area covered in trees, and in the Venn diagram there's no empty sets. Which makes them orthoginal. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
What about reorganizing the structure of the wiki to be something like this? Basically any item would fall into three main categories - boundary, landcover or land_use. The boundary or the land_use should be the first layer then the landcover. For instance, within a park you could have trees, rocks, sands etc. The natural category can be combined into one category for the landcover. The items for amenity, historic, leisure, man_made, military, shop and tourism would fall under the land_use category even though they wouldn't be tagged land_use=amenity, etc. They could still be tagged the same way as currently they are. I like the idea of having one tag for any type of trees. There could be a subtype such as type=forest or type=eucalyptus_grove, type=deciduouis, etc. The trees could even be rendered differently depending on how much space they took up. Nature_reserve should only be for a natural boundary that is an official nature reserve. Nature_reserve should also be either transparent or in the background. There are cases where it will run over both land and water. It may even run over a coast line like it does in Point Lobos, Ca. Especially in the Bay Area in California, there are a lot of tags that overlap each other and as a result look ugly. Using something like landcover=trees may help. The trees could be rendered with little tree icons instead of just being a solid shade of green like the parks are. One tag Natural=Trees, maybe it could be rendered differently based on the size. Boundary = the official boundary set by a government or municipality = administrative = civil = nature_reserve = national_park = national_forest = park = political landcover = is the physical material at the surface of the earth. = basin = bay = beach = cave_entrance = cave = rock face = coastline = fell = glacier = grass = heath = land = marsh = meadow = mud = peak = rocks = scree = scrub = snow = spring = tree (s) = volcano = water = wetland Land_use is the human modification of natural environment or wilderness into built environment such as fields, pastures, and settlements = allotments = cemetery = farm = farmyard = landfill = logging = open_space = pasture = quarry = railway = recreation_ground = reservoir = salt_pond = village_green = vineyard = brownfield = commercial = construction = greenfield = industrial = residential = retail amenity historic leisure man_made military shop tourism \== /// //Tom: I'd really like to nominate someone like Nick Whitelegg as Countryside Tsar for a day, so he could work out the different basic features we need to know about in the countryside and an appropriate tagging schema. Then, as always, a combination of wiki documentation, Mapnik & ti...@home rules, Xybot mischief and peer education could disseminate this sensible approach. I'm going to go back to this because it makes so much sense to do. I too get discouraged by the lack of comprehensible tags. I actually think that "natural" key is a bad key. Is an artificial lake a natural=water or something else? If it's a reservoir (and what lake isn't technically a reservoir) is it sufficient to tag it just landuse=reservoir, and should we tag it as man_made=water to explain that it's not actually natural? No, clearly we shouldn't. So we could just accept that natural and landuse are equivalent and adjust natural tagging as such (since changing everything to landuse seems out of the question). So if we do that, then natural=wood wood=managed or landuse=forestry or whatever becomes a reasonable way to separate the landform from the land use Greg: So, I think we need some tags that denote landcover, and some tags that denote legal status. so an area would have at most 1, preferably exactly one of: landcover=trees landcover=swamp Exactly what I was thinking (though I think just using natural as equivalent to landcover might be the way to go at this point), and using the USGS style landuse values [1] would be a good start covering the majority of cases (I think just rolling them all into natural (including man made surfaces makes sense at this point, but I accept I may be--and probably am--wrong) and at most 1 of land_use=... eh... I'm less fond of this, just because I'm not sold on there being 1 and only 1 land use for an area but I have no supporting evidence to back up my iffy feeling yes, land_use=forestry perhaps implies land_cover=trees, but in the case of land_use=conservation I would expect a variety of landcover tags within the administrative boundary of the conservation area/park. As would I, when I said solid fill earlier I mean more like hatching or even a transparent overlay/underlay? for rendering, I'm pretty convinced about it being a boundary=whatever issue at this point for things like parks/national forests,DNR land, BLM land... but not convinced that something can't be both say land_use=recreation and land_use=conservation (you can bike,
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
(Sorry Tom, for the double sending, I didn't check the reply to: field) Tom: > I'd really like to nominate someone like Nick Whitelegg as Countryside Tsar for a day, so he could work out the different basic features we need to know about in the countryside and an appropriate tagging schema. Then, as always, a combination of wiki documentation, Mapnik & ti...@home rules, Xybot mischief and peer education could disseminate this sensible approach. I'm going to go back to this because it makes so much sense to do. I too get discouraged by the lack of comprehensible tags. I actually think that "natural" key is a bad key. Is an artificial lake a natural=water or something else? If it's a reservoir (and what lake isn't technically a reservoir) is it sufficient to tag it just landuse=reservoir, and should we tag it as man_made=water to explain that it's not actually natural? No, clearly we shouldn't. So we could just accept that natural and landuse are equivalent and adjust natural tagging as such (since changing everything to landuse seems out of the question). So if we do that, then natural=wood wood=managed or landuse=forestry or whatever becomes a reasonable way to separate the landform from the land use Greg: > So, I think we need some tags that denote landcover, and some tags > that denote legal status. > so an area would have at most 1, preferably exactly one of: > landcover=trees landcover=swamp > Exactly what I was thinking (though I think just using natural as equivalent to landcover might be the way to go at this point), and using the USGS style landuse values [1] would be a good start covering the majority of cases (I think just rolling them all into natural (including man made surfaces makes sense at this point, but I accept I may be--and probably am--wrong) and at most 1 of > land_use=... eh... I'm less fond of this, just because I'm not sold on there being 1 and only 1 land use for an area but I have no supporting evidence to back up my iffy feeling > yes, land_use=forestry perhaps implies land_cover=trees, but in the case of > land_use=conservation > I would expect a variety of landcover tags within the administrative boundary > of the conservation area/park. As would I, when I said solid fill earlier I mean more like hatching or even a transparent overlay/underlay? for rendering, I'm pretty convinced about it being a boundary=whatever issue at this point for things like parks/national forests,DNR land, BLM land... but not convinced that something can't be both say land_use=recreation and land_use=conservation (you can bike, and paddle and fish, but you cant motor and litter and club baby seals) Gustav: > Because is see forests as something fundamentally different from a few > trees in the corner of a park. But would you classify them as a different landcover than say natural=wood, wood=sparse or something. A 500 m^2 wooded area--rendering as forests do elsewhere--inside a park is probably going to look like "hey look theres a spot with trees" as opposed to "what is a tiny wilderness doing inside the city park?" [1] http://gisdata.usgs.gov/edc_catalog/fetch_layer_docs.php?LayerName=NLCD%202001%20Land%20Cover Anyway, I think it's all a cluster, I just thought I could pipe in to add to the fun. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Tuesday 21 Jul 2009 21:20:49 Gustav Foseid wrote: > Because is see forests as something fundamentally different from a few > trees in the corner of a park. That's fine, but the question is how to tag that difference, and whether people can agree on the point at which you switch tags. Nobody can agree on forest vs. wood so the tagging becomes essentially pointless. Look at highways - we have a simple hierarchy we can all (almost) agree on around the world rather than having endless variations of country lanes, service roads, etc. that are represented by tags for surface, speed limit, transport options, etc. If you're looking at a map, you can quickly see the difference between a few trees in the corner (marked individually), a copse in the park (marked as a small area of natural=trees) and a great whacking great big forest. Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Tom Chance wrote: > On Tuesday 21 Jul 2009 19:37:15 Gustav Foseid wrote: > > I would prefer a combination of natural=trees for smaller areas covered > > with trees, typically within urban areas, and natural=forest for larger > > forests or areas with forest like eco systems. > > Why? Because is see forests as something fundamentally different from a few trees in the corner of a park. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > 2009/7/21 Milo van der Linden : >> May I suggest looking at what people at the CORINE landcover dataset >> have defined? >> >> http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover/at_download/file >> they have a nomenclature describing a classification that is studied and >> looks usable to me. > > of course it is studied. And it surely is usable in some way, but as > far as I have seen (it's 163 pages) it doesn't deal at all with > national parks and other protective areas (that's also logical, as > this is not landcover but legal stuff). I think the basic problem is that we have a bunch of tags for non-orthogonal cases and a real mess of when things are used. Physical description (landcover) is one thing, and legal status/use is another. The USGS topo maps used to have white for open and green for wooded, plus swamp, etc. and these were landcover. So, I think we need some tags that denote landcover, and some tags that denote legal status. so an area would have at most 1, preferably exactly one of: landcover=trees landcover=swamp and at most 1 of land_use=... yes, land_use=forestry perhaps implies land_cover=trees, but in the case of land_use=conservation I would expect a variety of landcover tags within the administrative boundary of the conservation area/park. pgp8kFeXnHOVF.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Tuesday 21 Jul 2009 19:37:15 Gustav Foseid wrote: > I would prefer a combination of natural=trees for smaller areas covered > with trees, typically within urban areas, and natural=forest for larger > forests or areas with forest like eco systems. Why? You know how big it is from, err, the size of the area on the map! You just open up pointless debates about whether this coppice or that woodland is big enough to constitute an ecosystem, when all you need to know is that there are trees there. As you grasped in the rest of your email, use other tags to denote national park status, ecosystem characteristics, etc. Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > of course it is studied. And it surely is usable in some way, but as > far as I have seen (it's 163 pages) it doesn't deal at all with > national parks and other protective areas (that's also logical, as > this is not landcover but legal stuff). A replacement for the tags landuse=forest and natural=wood should, in my opinion, also deal only with landcover/eco systems and not protective areas. A forest (wood, area with trees, whatever) should be tagged as such, no matter if it is inside or outside a national park. I would prefer a combination of natural=trees for smaller areas covered with trees, typically within urban areas, and natural=forest for larger forests or areas with forest like eco systems. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
2009/7/21 Milo van der Linden : > May I suggest looking at what people at the CORINE landcover dataset > have defined? > > http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover/at_download/file > they have a nomenclature describing a classification that is studied and > looks usable to me. of course it is studied. And it surely is usable in some way, but as far as I have seen (it's 163 pages) it doesn't deal at all with national parks and other protective areas (that's also logical, as this is not landcover but legal stuff). For the landcover: as we have a different scheme (more detailed in some respect), I wouldn't consider simply using CORINE for our scope. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Milo van der Linden wrote: > May I suggest looking at what people at the CORINE landcover dataset > have defined? > And we prepare in France an import of the Corine Land Cover data for the whole country (about 200.000 polygons). We wrote a wiki page about the conversion between CLC nomenclature and OSM tags here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Corine_Land_Cover/Tagging_scheme Please add your comments about our tagging schema. It's not too late for changes. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
May I suggest looking at what people at the CORINE landcover dataset have defined? http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover/at_download/file they have a nomenclature describing a classification that is studied and looks usable to me. Martin Koppenhoefer schreef: > 2009/7/21 Tyler : > >>> In some cases they are so large that they're used to help orientate >>> yourself on a map. With out them the map looks less map like. >>> >> Correct, Washington State looks naked as low zoom levels without its >> corresponding parks and national forests. >> > > than you have to add more details (*duck and cover*) ;-) > > >> I think that national parks are a feature with particular implications to >> larger and/or newer countries--as far as rendering--(US, Canada, Russia, >> China, Australia, India, Brasil, etc.) which aren't particularly well >> represented in Europe? (that is a genuine question, I don't know the answer >> to). >> > > no, you can find them in all civilized countries, but they tend to be > bigger in bigger or less densly inhabited countries. In Europe there > are lots of these. > There are also special ones to protect bird, animals, plants, ... and > there are different levels (european, national, regional, ...) > > cheers, > Martin > > ___ > 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 world mapping ...
--- On Tue, 21/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > Although it's hard to tell where the ACT is because > state borders don't seem to render at higher levels or when > I fixed them up I over looked something. > > yes, that's an issue, there is this rendering problem > (already filed a > bugreport some time ago) that smaller (lower) > administration > boundaries are not displayed on reasonable zoom-levels. I wasn't sure if it was my mistake or not, but state borders usually show at z4 on most Australian maps, if not higher, they are used a lot for map orientation as they are known well enough by most people etc. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
2009/7/21 Tyler : >> In some cases they are so large that they're used to help orientate >> yourself on a map. With out them the map looks less map like. > > Correct, Washington State looks naked as low zoom levels without its > corresponding parks and national forests. than you have to add more details (*duck and cover*) ;-) > I think that national parks are a feature with particular implications to > larger and/or newer countries--as far as rendering--(US, Canada, Russia, > China, Australia, India, Brasil, etc.) which aren't particularly well > represented in Europe? (that is a genuine question, I don't know the answer > to). no, you can find them in all civilized countries, but they tend to be bigger in bigger or less densly inhabited countries. In Europe there are lots of these. There are also special ones to protect bird, animals, plants, ... and there are different levels (european, national, regional, ...) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
2009/7/21 John Smith : > > --- On Tue, 21/7/09, Tyler wrote: > >> landuse. While I'm not convinced national parks, >> national forest wilderness areas, >> federal/state/county/municipal wildlife reserves >> shouldn't be solid fill areas in renderers, well, imagine a well mapped place, where every landcover (say just forests and lakes to make it simple) are mapped: would you render your solid fill above (no other items visible) or below (not visible at all)? I think a hatch above the other features (like diagonal lines, or maybe even just an surrounding outline) are more suitable. >> I have no >> argument that boundary="reserve type" is >> inadequate. I do think that there should be a better way to >> tag nature reserves and allowed activities, to that end >> I'm currently looking into regulations in non-US >> countries with similarly regulated large areas (generic >> applicable tags seem appropriate). > > In some cases they are so large that they're used to help orientate yourself > on a map. With out them the map looks less map like. > > http://osm.org/go/uYrAQb-- I agree that they should be mapped and also rendered, but to make the map look "map-like" I suggest to map landcover/landuse, roads, rivers, ... In Germany there are lots of protective areas, some smaller, some bigger, to give you an impression look on this map of Hessen (just a small part of Germany but already loads of protective areas, click to zoom): http://atlas.umwelt.hessen.de/servlet/Frame/atlas/naturschutz/schutzgebiete/karten/schutzgeb/m_1_1_1.htm > Two thirds of the Aust. Cap. Territory is national park, ACT is only 100 sq > km I think: > http://osm.org/go/uNPvyrl- fine, I think this makes it clear that just one simple filling wouldn't be adequate. > Although it's hard to tell where the ACT is because state borders don't seem > to render at higher levels or when I fixed them up I over looked something. yes, that's an issue, there is this rendering problem (already filed a bugreport some time ago) that smaller (lower) administration boundaries are not displayed on reasonable zoom-levels. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
> > In some cases they are so large that they're used to help orientate > yourself on a map. With out them the map looks less map like. Correct, Washington State looks naked as low zoom levels without its corresponding parks and national forests. I think that national parks are a feature with particular implications to larger and/or newer countries--as far as rendering--(US, Canada, Russia, China, Australia, India, Brasil, etc.) which aren't particularly well represented in Europe? (that is a genuine question, I don't know the answer to). Wood Buffalo National Park in Canada at 45,000 km^2 and Wrangell-St. Elias National Park in the US at 53,000 km^2 are larger than a half dozen or so US states and quite a few countries (both parks I would also classify as bigfoot habitat) I've pointed out this infographic before http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/291-federal-lands-in-the-us/ but.. a lot of land in the US is federal land, and much of that is National Parks and Forests. I don't feel like a boundary rendering is sufficient (a boundary tagging may very well be) USGS convention has historically been to render them as shades of green depending on scale. -Tyler ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
--- On Tue, 21/7/09, Tyler wrote: > landuse. While I'm not convinced national parks, > national forest wilderness areas, > federal/state/county/municipal wildlife reserves > shouldn't be solid fill areas in renderers, I have no > argument that boundary="reserve type" is > inadequate. I do think that there should be a better way to > tag nature reserves and allowed activities, to that end > I'm currently looking into regulations in non-US > countries with similarly regulated large areas (generic > applicable tags seem appropriate). In some cases they are so large that they're used to help orientate yourself on a map. With out them the map looks less map like. http://osm.org/go/uYrAQb-- Two thirds of the Aust. Cap. Territory is national park, ACT is only 100 sq km I think: http://osm.org/go/uNPvyrl- Although it's hard to tell where the ACT is because state borders don't seem to render at higher levels or when I fixed them up I over looked something. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
Martin, I agree with you. I like the idea of using natural=whatever for landcover and landuse=whatever for the landuse. While I'm not convinced national parks, national forest wilderness areas, federal/state/county/municipal wildlife reserves shouldn't be solid fill areas in renderers, I have no argument that boundary="reserve type" is inadequate. I do think that there should be a better way to tag nature reserves and allowed activities, to that end I'm currently looking into regulations in non-US countries with similarly regulated large areas (generic applicable tags seem appropriate). I will, however, stand by my bigfoot_habitat=yes tag. -Tyler On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > 2009/7/21 maning sambale : > > Landuse and Landcover are two different things although in some cases > > interchangeable. > > it doesn't change my point: there can be different reserves / > protective areas at the same area (air, water, natural, ...), together > with different "OSM-defined" landuses like forest, basin, reservoir, > etc. > Using landuse=nature_reserve will unnecessarily complicate our lifes... > > cheers, > Martin > > ___ > 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 world mapping ...
2009/7/21 maning sambale : > Landuse and Landcover are two different things although in some cases > interchangeable. it doesn't change my point: there can be different reserves / protective areas at the same area (air, water, natural, ...), together with different "OSM-defined" landuses like forest, basin, reservoir, etc. Using landuse=nature_reserve will unnecessarily complicate our lifes... cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
Landuse and Landcover are two different things although in some cases interchangeable. -- cheers, maning -- "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/ blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.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 world mapping ...
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
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Monday 20 Jul 2009 19:10:06 David Lynch wrote: > 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 Perfect! Clearly disambiguates the fact that you have trees from the many other concerns. Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 13:33, Gustav Foseid wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, David Lynch wrote: >> >> 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." > > What would you then use for a 200 square kilometer continous forest? It's still natural=trees. There are just a lot more trees than the smallest bunches. What triggered this was an area not far from me where small stands of trees (too many to pick out individual ones on aerial photos, but few enough that you could count them at ground level) were mapped as "natural=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 world mapping ...
> > What would you then use for a 200 square kilometer continous forest? > natural=trees landuse=nature_reserve bigfoot_habitat=yes ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, David Lynch wrote: > 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." What would you then use for a 200 square kilometer continous forest? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
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 world mapping ...
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. Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Tom Chance wrote: > Surely the basic, universal need is "there are some trees here, they're > called Sherwood Forest"? Evoke natural=wood (lakes and beaches also fall in > between managed and unmanaged land but are marked as natural) "Some trees here" called something, does not really fit the reality in all places. Scandinavia: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=60.632796,13.771362&spn=1.470943,5.844727&t=h&z=8 Siberia: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=62.277187,62.466202&spn=0.174406,0.730591&t=h&z=11 Amazonas: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=-6.20609,-62.402344&spn=5.960723,11.689453&t=h&z=7 Kongo: http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=0.911827,16.798096&spn=2.998546,5.844727&t=h&z=8 - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
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. I.e. the only clear boundary of the forest is the administrative boundary, not what it looks like on the ground. Andy Barnett, Phillip wrote: > +1 > > I believe the real problem was in the original creation of the tag, landuse = > forest. This should, in my opinion, have been landuse = forestry, which would > then have enabled the natural = wood tag to be used at the same time, or even > natural = forest > > > Also, from Wikipedia, > > "A forest is an area with a high density of trees" "Forests are > differentiated from woodlands by the extent of canopy coverage: in a forest, > the branches and the foliage of separate trees often meet or interlock, > although there can be gaps of varying sizes within an area referred to as > forest. A woodland has a more continuously open canopy, with trees spaced > further apart, which allows more sunlight to penetrate to the ground between > them." > > Cheers > > > > > PHILLIP BARNETT > SERVER MANAGER > > 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD > LONDON > WC1X 8XZ > UNITED KINGDOM > T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 > F > E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk > http://WWW.ITN.CO.UK > P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? > -Original Message- > > From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] > On Behalf Of Tom Chance > Sent: 20 July 2009 15:43 > To: talk@openstreetmap.org > Subject: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping > ... > > > So putting to one side arguments about the inherent value of trees, British > arboreal imperialism and Xybot tricks... > > Why do we care if something is a wood or a forest? Why do we care whether > or not it's managed, and whether we all have the same sense of what > "managed" means? > > Back in the good old days of stream vs river there was a clear need for > maps to distinguish between them. We now have a nice range of water > features from riverbank and river to stream and drain. > > Surely the basic, universal need is "there are some trees here, they're > called Sherwood Forest"? Evoke natural=wood (lakes and beaches also fall in > between managed and unmanaged land but are marked as natural) > > In addition you can add in: > > * type=deciduous (so we can all see what sorts of trees to expect) > * landuse=forestry (so we know if it's managed for commercial reasons) > > I'd really like to nominate someone like Nick Whitelegg as Countryside Tsar > for a day, so he could work out the different basic features we need to > know about in the countryside and an appropriate tagging schema. Then, as > always, a combination of wiki documentation, Mapnik & ti...@home rules, > Xybot mischief and peer education could disseminate this sensible approach. > > Every time I try to map a walk up a hill I get depressed by the lack of > comprehensible tags supported by renderers to get the map anywhere near as > useful as Ordnance Survey. > > Regards, > Tom > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > Please Note: > > > > Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily > represent > those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. > This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for > the use of the individual > or entity to which they are addressed. > If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk > > Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of > our clients and business, > we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. > > Thank You. > > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > > > -- Andy PGP Key ID: 0xDC1B5864 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
+1 I believe the real problem was in the original creation of the tag, landuse = forest. This should, in my opinion, have been landuse = forestry, which would then have enabled the natural = wood tag to be used at the same time, or even natural = forest Also, from Wikipedia, "A forest is an area with a high density of trees" "Forests are differentiated from woodlands by the extent of canopy coverage: in a forest, the branches and the foliage of separate trees often meet or interlock, although there can be gaps of varying sizes within an area referred to as forest. A woodland has a more continuously open canopy, with trees spaced further apart, which allows more sunlight to penetrate to the ground between them." Cheers PHILLIP BARNETT SERVER MANAGER 200 GRAY'S INN ROAD LONDON WC1X 8XZ UNITED KINGDOM T +44 (0)20 7430 4474 F E phillip.barn...@itn.co.uk http://WWW.ITN.CO.UK P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email? -Original Message- From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Tom Chance Sent: 20 July 2009 15:43 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ... So putting to one side arguments about the inherent value of trees, British arboreal imperialism and Xybot tricks... Why do we care if something is a wood or a forest? Why do we care whether or not it's managed, and whether we all have the same sense of what "managed" means? Back in the good old days of stream vs river there was a clear need for maps to distinguish between them. We now have a nice range of water features from riverbank and river to stream and drain. Surely the basic, universal need is "there are some trees here, they're called Sherwood Forest"? Evoke natural=wood (lakes and beaches also fall in between managed and unmanaged land but are marked as natural) In addition you can add in: * type=deciduous (so we can all see what sorts of trees to expect) * landuse=forestry (so we know if it's managed for commercial reasons) I'd really like to nominate someone like Nick Whitelegg as Countryside Tsar for a day, so he could work out the different basic features we need to know about in the countryside and an appropriate tagging schema. Then, as always, a combination of wiki documentation, Mapnik & ti...@home rules, Xybot mischief and peer education could disseminate this sensible approach. Every time I try to map a walk up a hill I get depressed by the lack of comprehensible tags supported by renderers to get the map anywhere near as useful as Ordnance Survey. Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk Please Note: Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Independent Television News Limited unless specifically stated. This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify postmas...@itn.co.uk Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from our systems. Thank You. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
--- On Mon, 20/7/09, Tom Chance wrote: > * landuse=forestry (so we know if it's managed for > commercial reasons) You have parks, state parks, state forests, national parks, nature conservation areas. The list goes on and on as if someone must keep thinking up new names to keep their job. That's just the ones I can think of, but the list are names to describe essentially 2 things, crown land with a bunch of trees on it, is set aside for logging purposes or not. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
So putting to one side arguments about the inherent value of trees, British arboreal imperialism and Xybot tricks... Why do we care if something is a wood or a forest? Why do we care whether or not it's managed, and whether we all have the same sense of what "managed" means? Back in the good old days of stream vs river there was a clear need for maps to distinguish between them. We now have a nice range of water features from riverbank and river to stream and drain. Surely the basic, universal need is "there are some trees here, they're called Sherwood Forest"? Evoke natural=wood (lakes and beaches also fall in between managed and unmanaged land but are marked as natural) In addition you can add in: * type=deciduous (so we can all see what sorts of trees to expect) * landuse=forestry (so we know if it's managed for commercial reasons) I'd really like to nominate someone like Nick Whitelegg as Countryside Tsar for a day, so he could work out the different basic features we need to know about in the countryside and an appropriate tagging schema. Then, as always, a combination of wiki documentation, Mapnik & ti...@home rules, Xybot mischief and peer education could disseminate this sensible approach. Every time I try to map a walk up a hill I get depressed by the lack of comprehensible tags supported by renderers to get the map anywhere near as useful as Ordnance Survey. Regards, Tom ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
