Re: [talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests
On 7/1/24 17:03, Little Maps wrote: Thanks folks, I’ll use just leisure=nature_reserve, as suggested. landuse=forest will probably only be needed for plantations now I guess. Ewen, many of the OSM State Forest boundaries in Vic are ‘guesstimate’ boundaries that were first mapped many years ago. Some are really rough and very approximate. The Wombat SF boundary includes lots of obvious private land in many places. At least it’s a lot easier to see the problems when the admin boundary is mapped separately from the vegetation patterns, after landuse=forest is replaced by nature reserve and a separate wood layer. +1 on separation of land use and land cover being a 'good thing'. The Vic Forests ban on logging is 'only' for native forests, so any radiator pine would still be landuse=forest? Don't know about the blue gum plantations, probably excluded from the 'native' bit due to being 'plantations'. Possibly the native forests presently under the control of Vic Forests might be moved to some other government body... wait and see for the changes. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests
Thanks Brendan, the VicMap Lite Public Land Classification dataset doesn't contain the names of each State Forest, just their boundaries. But this works fine in cases where we already have a State Forest mapped and named in OSM but our boundaries are a bit off. You can open the dataset as a layer in JOSM (don't know about iD editor) and then trace the outline of each state forest to refine existing osm boundaries, which is really fast and simple. (I can write some instructions if anyone is keen). I've been looking at the Wombat State Forest borders in central Vic. The VicMap Lite data may not be super high resolution but it's way more accurate than some of the borders we have at the moment and will greatly upgrade the osm state forest boundary. Cheers Ian On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 6:55 PM Brendan Barnes wrote: > A relevant open source dataset would be Vicmap Lite - Public Land > Classification Polygon (CC-BY 4.0 with waiver) > https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-6WFVT7Kbk2STaCyQsxWl8CiRaic > Note Vicmap Lite already has softwood plantation polygons on public land. > > Public Land Management PLM25 (CC-BY) > https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-NWpWstpxTV460Xf5VoZa2BDVN3 is > a great product to look at, however I don't believe we have a waiver for > DELWP datasets that might include non-Vicmap (waivered) products within the > dataset. Please correct me if I'm wrong. > > > On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 at 17:07, Little Maps wrote: > >> Thanks folks, I’ll use just leisure=nature_reserve, as suggested. >> landuse=forest will probably only be needed for plantations now I guess. >> Ewen, many of the OSM State Forest boundaries in Vic are ‘guesstimate’ >> boundaries that were first mapped many years ago. Some are really rough and >> very approximate. The Wombat SF boundary includes lots of obvious private >> land in many places. At least it’s a lot easier to see the problems when >> the admin boundary is mapped separately from the vegetation patterns, after >> landuse=forest is replaced by nature reserve and a separate wood layer. >> Thanks again all, best wishes for 2024, Ian >> ___ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests
A relevant open source dataset would be Vicmap Lite - Public Land Classification Polygon (CC-BY 4.0 with waiver) https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-6WFVT7Kbk2STaCyQsxWl8CiRaic Note Vicmap Lite already has softwood plantation polygons on public land. Public Land Management PLM25 (CC-BY) https://vic.digitaltwin.terria.io/#share=s-NWpWstpxTV460Xf5VoZa2BDVN3 is a great product to look at, however I don't believe we have a waiver for DELWP datasets that might include non-Vicmap (waivered) products within the dataset. Please correct me if I'm wrong. On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 at 17:07, Little Maps wrote: > Thanks folks, I’ll use just leisure=nature_reserve, as suggested. > landuse=forest will probably only be needed for plantations now I guess. > Ewen, many of the OSM State Forest boundaries in Vic are ‘guesstimate’ > boundaries that were first mapped many years ago. Some are really rough and > very approximate. The Wombat SF boundary includes lots of obvious private > land in many places. At least it’s a lot easier to see the problems when > the admin boundary is mapped separately from the vegetation patterns, after > landuse=forest is replaced by nature reserve and a separate wood layer. > Thanks again all, best wishes for 2024, Ian > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests
Thanks folks, I’ll use just leisure=nature_reserve, as suggested. landuse=forest will probably only be needed for plantations now I guess. Ewen, many of the OSM State Forest boundaries in Vic are ‘guesstimate’ boundaries that were first mapped many years ago. Some are really rough and very approximate. The Wombat SF boundary includes lots of obvious private land in many places. At least it’s a lot easier to see the problems when the admin boundary is mapped separately from the vegetation patterns, after landuse=forest is replaced by nature reserve and a separate wood layer. Thanks again all, best wishes for 2024, Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests
Agree with Andrew that perhaps leave off boundary=protected_area for now, until further clarification is received. Looking at the DPC media releases, budget changes were announced https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/delivering-certainty-timber-workers and VicForests had a similar statement at the time https://www.vicforests.com.au/publications-media/latest-news/vicforests-statement-regarding-native-timber-harvesting and modified their Timber Release Plan to align to the cessation date. However I can't find yet if any specific legislation has been passed to alter the current state of the State Forest protections or boundaries on Crown land. I agree landuse=forest should be removed from the State Forest boundaries in general, however will still be needed for "farm forests" plantation timber on private land (landuse=forest, operator=VicForests, produce=timber). Always agree that vegetation mapping should be separate to administrative boundary mapping :) On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 at 12:44, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Sounds good to me! > > Thanks > > Graeme > > > On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 at 11:15, Andrew Davidson wrote: > >> I would leave off boundary=protected_area until they have IUCN >> Categories assigned. It doesn't add any more information than >> leisure=nature_reserve. >> >> On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 11:52 AM Little Maps wrote: >> > >> > Hi all, landuse=forest is widely used to denote State Forests in OSM, >> due to legislated landuse of timber harvesting. However, from 1 Jan this >> year, timber harvesting is now banned in all native forests in Victoria, so >> the problematic landuse=forest tag is no longer appropriate. >> > >> > I’m seeking feedback on the most appropriate tag to use now. Down the >> track, individual decisions will be made on conservation / recreation / >> Indigenous management priorities in each reserve. In the interim, are there >> any objections to replacing landuse=forest with the following tags… >> > >> > boundary=protected_area >> > leisure=nature_reserve >> > >> > plus name tags etc, and mapping separate natural=wood etc boundaries as >> needed. Among other advantages, getting rid of landuse=forest will make >> vegetation mapping a lot simpler in State Forests in Vic. Cheers Ian >> > >> > >> > >> > ___ >> > Talk-au mailing list >> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> >> ___ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests
Sounds good to me! Thanks Graeme On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 at 11:15, Andrew Davidson wrote: > I would leave off boundary=protected_area until they have IUCN > Categories assigned. It doesn't add any more information than > leisure=nature_reserve. > > On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 11:52 AM Little Maps wrote: > > > > Hi all, landuse=forest is widely used to denote State Forests in OSM, > due to legislated landuse of timber harvesting. However, from 1 Jan this > year, timber harvesting is now banned in all native forests in Victoria, so > the problematic landuse=forest tag is no longer appropriate. > > > > I’m seeking feedback on the most appropriate tag to use now. Down the > track, individual decisions will be made on conservation / recreation / > Indigenous management priorities in each reserve. In the interim, are there > any objections to replacing landuse=forest with the following tags… > > > > boundary=protected_area > > leisure=nature_reserve > > > > plus name tags etc, and mapping separate natural=wood etc boundaries as > needed. Among other advantages, getting rid of landuse=forest will make > vegetation mapping a lot simpler in State Forests in Vic. Cheers Ian > > > > > > > > ___ > > Talk-au mailing list > > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests
I would leave off boundary=protected_area until they have IUCN Categories assigned. It doesn't add any more information than leisure=nature_reserve. On Sun, Jan 7, 2024 at 11:52 AM Little Maps wrote: > > Hi all, landuse=forest is widely used to denote State Forests in OSM, due to > legislated landuse of timber harvesting. However, from 1 Jan this year, > timber harvesting is now banned in all native forests in Victoria, so the > problematic landuse=forest tag is no longer appropriate. > > I’m seeking feedback on the most appropriate tag to use now. Down the track, > individual decisions will be made on conservation / recreation / Indigenous > management priorities in each reserve. In the interim, are there any > objections to replacing landuse=forest with the following tags… > > boundary=protected_area > leisure=nature_reserve > > plus name tags etc, and mapping separate natural=wood etc boundaries as > needed. Among other advantages, getting rid of landuse=forest will make > vegetation mapping a lot simpler in State Forests in Vic. Cheers Ian > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests
Hi Ian, I fully concur with your suggestion. I was in the Wombat State Forest and found the map didn't necessarily match the ground truth, possibly due to abutting landowners being geographically challenged when adding fencing so it would be great if state forests could be simplified so it is easier to see when the track finishes at a brand new fence! Ewen On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 at 11:52, Little Maps wrote: > Hi all, landuse=forest is widely used to denote State Forests in OSM, due > to legislated landuse of timber harvesting. However, from 1 Jan this year, > timber harvesting is now banned in all native forests in Victoria, so the > problematic landuse=forest tag is no longer appropriate. > > I’m seeking feedback on the most appropriate tag to use now. Down the > track, individual decisions will be made on conservation / recreation / > Indigenous management priorities in each reserve. In the interim, are there > any objections to replacing landuse=forest with the following tags… > > boundary=protected_area > leisure=nature_reserve > > plus name tags etc, and mapping separate natural=wood etc boundaries as > needed. Among other advantages, getting rid of landuse=forest will make > vegetation mapping a lot simpler in State Forests in Vic. Cheers Ian > > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > -- Warm Regards Ewen Hill ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] New tags for Vic State Forests
Hi all, landuse=forest is widely used to denote State Forests in OSM, due to legislated landuse of timber harvesting. However, from 1 Jan this year, timber harvesting is now banned in all native forests in Victoria, so the problematic landuse=forest tag is no longer appropriate. I’m seeking feedback on the most appropriate tag to use now. Down the track, individual decisions will be made on conservation / recreation / Indigenous management priorities in each reserve. In the interim, are there any objections to replacing landuse=forest with the following tags… boundary=protected_area leisure=nature_reserve plus name tags etc, and mapping separate natural=wood etc boundaries as needed. Among other advantages, getting rid of landuse=forest will make vegetation mapping a lot simpler in State Forests in Vic. Cheers Ian ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
