Re: [talk-au] add boundary=forest tag to Qld State Forests and Timber Reserves
> On 13 Sep 2022, at 8:53 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Usually the type of tree - not a native to oz = Radiata pine and Southern > Pine. > Apparently some are using Hoop Pine .. native to oz ... so not 100% accurate > .. but would get most of them? > There are enormous areas of blue gum plantation in W Vic and SE SA, plus Pinus radiata. Spotted gum is planted elsewhere too. Species or genus are great tags to add where known, but having a generic tag that encompasses all plantations, such as plantation=yes or equivalent, makes a very simple way to search for all planted forestry areas. See for example, the tagging here: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/11661722#map=13/-37.4429/141.5230 Best wishes.___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] add boundary=forest tag to Qld State Forests and Timber Reserves
On 13/9/22 19:56, Little Maps wrote: On 13 Sep 2022, at 6:01 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: There are some 'private' forestry areas too, at least in NSW ... these are visible as they are not native and in organized rows, so easy to identify. Heaps in W Vic too. As state govts move from timber harvesting in native forests to plantation based forestry it’ll become increasingly important to have a robust tagging scheme to differentiate native forests from plantations. The informal tag “plantation=yes” is widely used in SW WA and W Vic, albeit by a small number of editors. I’m not aware of a formal tag that conveys the same information. Usually the type of tree - not a native to oz = Radiata pine and Southern Pine. Apparently some are using Hoop Pine .. native to oz ... so not 100% accurate .. but would get most of them? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Usage of Openstreetmap at EMSINA
Thanks, Ewen: you have inspired me to dig up his business card (hm, where’d I put it?!) and do exactly that. Yes, I’m sure "a waiver could be signed and copyright sorted,” as we really do have open data laws here and I’m sure with the rightly-worded request, it could be done legally and without revealing whatever might be “privileged.” There ARE such things (I wouldn’t want MY neighborhood’s gate code to be made public if I live on a road where each of us, for example, has 15 hectares and shares an access road / gate code). That’s not what I’m interested in, but the fact there is a road, and a gate, yeah, I could see that making its way into OSM. I’m quite respectful of access=no and access=private, having tagged quite a few of those (after I discovered them, which is almost the only way for OSM to do that — well, very well / “correctly,” politely / legally, anyway). What we have (in my little county) is pretty darn good (I think nearly every public road and pretty darn close to “most if not all” private roads, excluding really well-hidden driveways), but the really, really obscure (usually dirt) roads that allow access to “miles way, way back there” are surely missing in some cases, and those are like catnip for this mapping cat. Yes, they are private as heck, but I suppose the “for completeness sake” in me craves those data. It’s like finishing a crossword puzzle: you aren’t done ’til you’re done! > On Sep 13, 2022, at 2:54 AM, Ewen Hill wrote: > > Hi Steve, > Thanks for the interesting tale. Remember that if you only use the end > product through paper maps, mobile data terminals then it is a "black box > product" that is difficult to discuss, especially for an area commander whose > talents may be in other areas. The Calfire crews I have met have been nothing > short of open and accommodating > >Back in 2005/2006, one part of Australia provided 1275 local fire > brigades, base maps that they then went out and validated (e.g bridge limits, > forestry tracks and private tracks that can be used in a pinch), and > returned. Bridge limits are important if you are carrying 3000kg of wet stuff > on the back and 2wd/4wd access is also important. This was then compiled > into paper and online maps and has grown significantly since. > > These maps have around 80 layers compiled from a lot of government data > (already available to OSMers) but has a number of layers that OSMers may not > need like brigade turn out areas, initial response tables where your house > may be a two truck initial response but the house next door maybe 4 trucks > due to potential hazards. There is a lot more privileged and operational data > that is not suitable for distribution. > > You should probably be looking at the land management, water infrastructure > and transport departments who control the layers we OSMers are interested in > to get the waiver signed and copyright sorted. > > Ewen > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] add boundary=forest tag to Qld State Forests and Timber Reserves
> On 13 Sep 2022, at 6:01 pm, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There are some 'private' forestry areas too, at least in NSW ... these are > visible as they are not native and in organized rows, so easy to identify. Heaps in W Vic too. As state govts move from timber harvesting in native forests to plantation based forestry it’ll become increasingly important to have a robust tagging scheme to differentiate native forests from plantations. The informal tag “plantation=yes” is widely used in SW WA and W Vic, albeit by a small number of editors. I’m not aware of a formal tag that conveys the same information. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Usage of Openstreetmap at EMSINA
Hi Steve, Thanks for the interesting tale. Remember that if you only use the end product through paper maps, mobile data terminals then it is a "black box product" that is difficult to discuss, especially for an area commander whose talents may be in other areas. The Calfire crews I have met have been nothing short of open and accommodating Back in 2005/2006, one part of Australia provided 1275 local fire brigades, base maps that they then went out and validated (e.g bridge limits, forestry tracks and private tracks that can be used in a pinch), and returned. Bridge limits are important if you are carrying 3000kg of wet stuff on the back and 2wd/4wd access is also important. This was then compiled into paper and online maps and has grown significantly since. These maps have around 80 layers compiled from a lot of government data (already available to OSMers) but has a number of layers that OSMers may not need like brigade turn out areas, initial response tables where your house may be a two truck initial response but the house next door maybe 4 trucks due to potential hazards. There is a lot more privileged and operational data that is not suitable for distribution. You should probably be looking at the land management, water infrastructure and transport departments who control the layers we OSMers are interested in to get the waiver signed and copyright sorted. Ewen On Tue, 13 Sept 2022 at 18:57, stevea wrote: > Some USA perspective: because of where I was, happening to go to a funky > little mountain organic food store and the proximity of this store to a > "CalFire" station (sort of two of them, in a regional sense...CalFire being > the California Department of Forestry, essentially the "state fire > department" for California — in rural areas where there is no urban fire > department), I once bumped into what I later figured out is a sort of > "lieutenant general" in the state fire hierarchy of California — pretty far > "up there" for the little village I was in. White shirt, yellow-tin > shield, name tag, official state car he was getting out of... I mentioned > OSM and what it is and he (I honestly think so) looked at me like he didn't > know my full name, what I do on the project (a fair bit in the county we > were both standing in) — but I have a feeling he knew exactly who I am — > and even what I was about to ask him, but he acted very nonchalant. Super > nonchalant. Very nice man. I asked him what sort of GIS / mapping data > the state uses for fire data: parcels, "back roads," the sorts of gates > where they have a key or a code (because they are the fire department) and > it was like I was a guy holding a grenade and asking the combination to > Fort Knox (where, supposedly, a great deal of gold is locked up). > > Totally "we don't talk about our map data." Just shut me down like that. > He knew what I was asking, and that I wanted to somehow get it into OSM and > it was like "talk to the hand, son..." just a total wall of "yes, we might > be the state and we might have 'open data' (sunshine) laws in California > and I know you want me to talk about this stuff, but it ain't gonna > happen." He was as friendly as could be, gave me his business card and > everything, but he shut me down so effectively it befuddled me like I've > never been befuddled before. > > Now, I know for a fact that CalFire has (and uses and updates and > improves...) some serious, serious map data. Could I, as a "simple > citizen" have access to it? Um, to what again? What are you talking > about? It was surreal. The answer was either "no" before I asked the > question, or whenever I did ask a specific question it was "what are you > talking about?" in such a skilled way I was derailed at every step. This > guy was a master of deception that such map data even exists (but of course > it does) and he did it while smiling at me like the nicest guy at the > grocery store, and even gave me his business card. That guy is slick. I > was bamboozled totally. > > Moral of the story is that I doubt OSM will ever have access to those fire > / emergency geo data (and they are necessarily very high quality), and I > don't know what wizardry by which that happens (as we ARE an "open data" > (sunshine) state, with "public" data), yet this stuff seems locked up > tighter than a bank vault. > > So, it's interesting how all of this stuff works. I have found that > "some" bureaucracies (e.g. county GIS departments) KNOW there is going to > be some overlap with "their" (our) data and OSM (indeed, I do keep such > datasets fairly synced, especially as they update / improve). But for the > ultra-high-quality emergency-services geo data? Those seem to be kept on > the top shelf of a locked cabinet in a room I can't enter. I suppose > that's OK, but in some sense, it doesn't feel OK. I mean, in a "public" > sense, those are my (our) data. Are they sensitive, and therefore out of > my reach? Wow, it sure
Re: [talk-au] Usage of Openstreetmap at EMSINA
Some USA perspective: because of where I was, happening to go to a funky little mountain organic food store and the proximity of this store to a "CalFire" station (sort of two of them, in a regional sense...CalFire being the California Department of Forestry, essentially the "state fire department" for California — in rural areas where there is no urban fire department), I once bumped into what I later figured out is a sort of "lieutenant general" in the state fire hierarchy of California — pretty far "up there" for the little village I was in. White shirt, yellow-tin shield, name tag, official state car he was getting out of... I mentioned OSM and what it is and he (I honestly think so) looked at me like he didn't know my full name, what I do on the project (a fair bit in the county we were both standing in) — but I have a feeling he knew exactly who I am — and even what I was about to ask him, but he acted very nonchalant. Super nonchalant. Very nice man. I asked him what sort of GIS / mapping data the state uses for fire data: parcels, "back roads," the sorts of gates where they have a key or a code (because they are the fire department) and it was like I was a guy holding a grenade and asking the combination to Fort Knox (where, supposedly, a great deal of gold is locked up). Totally "we don't talk about our map data." Just shut me down like that. He knew what I was asking, and that I wanted to somehow get it into OSM and it was like "talk to the hand, son..." just a total wall of "yes, we might be the state and we might have 'open data' (sunshine) laws in California and I know you want me to talk about this stuff, but it ain't gonna happen." He was as friendly as could be, gave me his business card and everything, but he shut me down so effectively it befuddled me like I've never been befuddled before. Now, I know for a fact that CalFire has (and uses and updates and improves...) some serious, serious map data. Could I, as a "simple citizen" have access to it? Um, to what again? What are you talking about? It was surreal. The answer was either "no" before I asked the question, or whenever I did ask a specific question it was "what are you talking about?" in such a skilled way I was derailed at every step. This guy was a master of deception that such map data even exists (but of course it does) and he did it while smiling at me like the nicest guy at the grocery store, and even gave me his business card. That guy is slick. I was bamboozled totally. Moral of the story is that I doubt OSM will ever have access to those fire / emergency geo data (and they are necessarily very high quality), and I don't know what wizardry by which that happens (as we ARE an "open data" (sunshine) state, with "public" data), yet this stuff seems locked up tighter than a bank vault. So, it's interesting how all of this stuff works. I have found that "some" bureaucracies (e.g. county GIS departments) KNOW there is going to be some overlap with "their" (our) data and OSM (indeed, I do keep such datasets fairly synced, especially as they update / improve). But for the ultra-high-quality emergency-services geo data? Those seem to be kept on the top shelf of a locked cabinet in a room I can't enter. I suppose that's OK, but in some sense, it doesn't feel OK. I mean, in a "public" sense, those are my (our) data. Are they sensitive, and therefore out of my reach? Wow, it sure seems like it, in a big, big way. So, sometimes "we use theirs," and sometimes "they use ours" (I've seen and participated in the former and noticed that they participate in the latter) — which is cool, because over years, the data "get better towards each other" — but other times, "never the twain shall meet." Quite intentionally. I'm sure there are good reasons for this, and it's legal, of course. And such people are trained to "talk about it" by "not talking about it" in that skilled way he did, it was amazing. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] add boundary=forest tag to Qld State Forests and Timber Reserves
On 12/9/22 19:34, Little Maps wrote: Nev, great initiative. I’ve been contemplating how the new boundary=forest could be used in Vic and S NSW. Rather than view it a tag to use in addition to land use=forest, I saw it as a useful replacement. By replacing landuse=forest with boundary = forest, we could generate State Forest (SF) tenure boundaries, similar to conservation reserves, and remove all ambiguity about whether landuse=forest infers a vegetation type (forest/wood), a landuse (forestry) or a tenure (State Forest). (It means all 3 things to different people). We could then accurately map SF tenures independent of vegetation type and (perhaps?) the finer-scale mapping of actual landuse. We could also more accurately map vegetation types in SFs, whereas atm, it’s a complete mess to map scrub, grassland, etc in SFs, especially where they cross SF boundaries. Also, it clearly acknowledges that only a small part of many SFs is actually used (and can be used) for timber production. It seems to me we have a fantastic opportunity to greatly reduce the horrendous vagaries that are implicit in landuse=forest across Aus SFs if we use boundary=forest to apply to tenure, and natural=wood, scrub, etc to apply to the vegetation type, within SFs. In reality, we have little way of mapping which parts of many SFs are available for logging unless we import far more detailed datasets from gov agencies. I look forward to other thoughts on the matter. Cheers Ian There are some 'private' forestry areas too, at least in NSW ... these are visible as they are not native and in organized rows, so easy to identify. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
