Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

[Warin]

Hi,

I removed the tree tagging from the National Park boundary.

This had caused people to exclude water areas from the Park - which is 
not true.


IIRC Graham objected to the now blank landcover.

I did go back and created landcovers for the general area. This was 
quite some time ago!


If the tree cover has grown then map it! I have no objection. You may 
find different imagery is more current then other imagery - be selective.


I think someone else did ask if they could change some of it... while I 
do take some notice of changes to some of "my" data ... it really is 
OSM's data and not "mine" so I am not that possessive of it.



So bottom line for changes to the map - do it. As long as it is not 
destructive all is good.



Regarding landcover=trees and similarly landcover=grass... my and others 
alternative to the natural=wood/landuse=forest and landuse=grass debacles.



On 8/10/21 9:18 am, EON4wd wrote:


Hi,

Further to Andrew Parkers question about forested areas.

I am also a casual user for uploading data and I also create my own 
maps from the data.


My interest is in 4wd tracks.

The Grampians has had the ‘landcover – tree’ ‘areas’ changed which in 
my opinion is now not correct.


See

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867 



The Grampians is a National park and is covered in trees.

There are a number of rocks and rocky outcrops (lots actually) and a 
few lakes and roads plus some swamp and rock quarries, but generally 
speaking it is completely covered in trees, everywhere, including the 
rocky outcrops.


I suspect that some well meaning person has mapped what they could see 
via a satellite image after a fire went though.


Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to 
be able to find out what they are thinking?


Traditionally, the whole area is mapped as tree cover and then other 
features are added on top, such as the lakes and roads.


Also towards the SA border there are other treed areas that have been 
very carefully traced out. Yet traditionally the whole area is set 
with the fence lines and tracks then marked on top.


Not necessarily wrong, but tracing the exact line of where the trees 
finish and the road side has been cleared, is not really helpful. Or 
is it?


Thanks

Ian Winter


___
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] Mapping tree cover

[Brendan Barnes]

Regarding bushfires, some tagging syntax was discussed at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:natural%3Dwood#Burned_Woodland
a few years ago.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

[Little Maps]

>> RE: Also towards the SA border there are other treed areas that have been 
>> very carefully traced out. Yet traditionally the whole area is set with the 
>> fence lines and tracks then marked on top. Not necessarily wrong, but 
>> tracing the exact line of where the trees finish and the road side has been 
>> cleared, is not really helpful. Or is it?

Ian, in addition to accuracy, there’s a practical advantage for mappers when 
separate natural=wood polygons are mapped on opposite sides of some roads (i.e. 
with a cleared break along the roadside). In SW Vic, the vegetation mapping 
includes a lot of complex multipolygons, with smaller areas of scrub, water, 
grass etc, embedded as inner boundaries within the larger wood areas. These get 
really complex to edit when they cover large areas. By breaking them up into 
smaller units, it makes editing a lot easier and helps prevent accidental 
damage to the relations. Wide, roadside clearings provide a very handy place to 
place the breaks. This is much the same reason that Brendan described for the 
excellent vegetation mapping in eastern Vic. Cheers Ian

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

[Michael Collinson]

Picking just Adam's question about mapping after a fire. [I also very 
much support the idea that OSM ways should ideally have only one primary 
tag and so agree that natural and boundary does not go together.]


I went through a similar self-dialogue where I am now in Sweden as to 
what to with clear-cut areas. My conclusion was just ignore them and 
still map as wood/forest. I think the same applies here.


It remains woodland, just in a special state. And it opens a two cans of 
worms: When does it stop? (Natural regeneration, replanting). Highly 
impractical given the wildly different dates on imagery commonly 
available to us.


That said, cutting and fires have a huge impact on navigation markers, 
aesthetic enjoyment of the countryside and more so it would be "nice" to 
see some sort of mapping.  I follow an OSM doctrine of the "the more, 
the merrier" and see nothing wrong with experimenting by adding separate 
polygons of burnt areas. Adding a burn year would throw the question of 
"when does it stop being burnt?"  from the data to the renderer. Of 
course, the counter argument is that it won't show on maps. But I remain 
hopeful that we will see a federation of national level OSM maps 
rendered to suit local tastes and requirements. Just musing.


Mike

On 2021-10-08 04:28, EON4wd wrote:


Another part of the question is how many trees before it can be 
classified as such?


I have been to the Grampians within the last 12 months and I did not 
find any scorched area left. All trees had growth.


If I look at the satellite picture from the OSM id editor, large areas 
look burnt. Look around Lake Wartook. All this area is definitely not 
burnt now and I think should classify as covered in trees. Other 
satellite images show this area better.


I would agree that ‘natural’ areas should be separated from ‘boundary’ 
layers.


*From:*Adam Horan 
*Sent:* Friday, 8 October 2021 12:59 PM
*To:* EON4wd 
*Cc:* OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
*Subject:* Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

There is another aspect to your question, which is how to map 
woods/trees after a fire?


You're right it looks like someone has mapped the wooded areas as a 
relation with holes for non-wooded areas


https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9300964/history 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9300964/history>


Some of the current gaps might be due to recent fires, and I don't 
know if they should be mapped as something else. Depending on the fire 
severity then it's possible the woodland will regrow quickly, slowly, 
or not for a long time. I assume there's some precedent & 
convention based on the large fires in the east a couple of years back.


Adam

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:33, Adam Horan <mailto:aho...@gmail.com>> wrote:


I think you're asking the same question as Andrew, but you
possibly have different viewpoints or opinions on it.

I see the map as a painting that's becoming more detailed and
accurate as time progresses. In the beginning the map was blank,
and people added large areas of landcover just to get something
down. Mappers took conveniences like marking a national park as
all desert or all trees.

However now that all the basics have been done mappers are adding
more detailed, accurate information and using more
sophisticated tagging schemes.

I think it's entirely right that we map what's on the ground. If
there's a 20m gap in the trees for a road, or significant fire
break, or there's been clearing, then people should map that in
detail if they have time and inclination.

Also the trees tend not to respect administrative boundaries, it's
almost like they don't know they're there... Tree cover extends
beyond the National Parks in a continuous run, and similarly there
are clearings, lakes, meadows, moorlands within the parks.

However the first step in mapping this detail is to remove the
blanket landcover from the admin boundary.

Adam

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd mailto:i...@eon4wd.com.au>> wrote:

Hi,

Further to Andrew Parkers question about forested areas.

I am also a casual user for uploading data and I also create
my own maps from the data.

My interest is in 4wd tracks.

The Grampians has had the ‘landcover – tree’ ‘areas’ changed
which in my opinion is now not correct.

See

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867>

The Grampians is a National park and is covered in trees.

There are a number of rocks and rocky outcrops (lots actually)
and a few lakes and roads plus some swamp and rock quarries,
but generally speaking it is completely covered in trees,
everywhere, including the rocky outcrops.

I suspect that some well meaning person

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

[Brendan Barnes]

Our mappers "map what's on the ground" and use "one feature, one OSM
element". I agree as OSM matures and the detail of these remote areas is
surveyed, we should be distinctly mapping natural features vs
administrative boundaries as separate entities. I've helped with detailing
natural areas in the Victorian Alps, and I can say unpicking natural tags
from administrative boundaries is a lot of work! (and prone to accidentally
breaking the odd poly or two in the process, sorry about that)!

It's worth the effort though, and we end up with detailed outdoor maps like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-37.1194/146.6790 Also, we used to
have one massive natural=wood polygon stretching hundreds of kilometres
from the outskirts of Melbourne up to the NSW border, which meant any
breakages during editing would lose half a state's worth of tree cover.
Chunking this down into several polys has made localised natural features
detailing far more manageable for editors.

On the topic of natural features, can anyone advise the recommended largest
size on what a multipolygon can be? I remember some editors and renderers
used to struggle with thousands of members in the relation, but I can't
seem to find the recommended maximum anymore
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/11101

You can also use Overpass Turbo to query natural features, eg
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1bRC

Regarding administrative boundaries, developers, is it possible for the
ones that were imported many years ago to be re-validated somehow? Some
form of scheduled script to check that the OSM data still matches the
official open source dataset to prevent editing drift?

..Brendan

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 16:35, Kim Oldfield via Talk-au <
talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> On 8/10/21 2:17 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd  wrote:
>
>> Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be
>> able to find out what they are thinking?
>>
> If you're using the default iD editor, select a feature, then in the
> bottom left there is a link to view on OSM, which shows in the left panel
> who changed it last, but you can select "View history" at the bottom of the
> panel to see what and who changed it.
>
>
> Or, when looking at openstreetmap.org, click the "Query features" arrow,
> then click somewhere in the Grampians, for example
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=-37.20902=142.51812
> Under Enclosing features, click on "Protected Area Grampians National
> Park" which takes you to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2703380
> You can click "View History" at the bottom of the relation page.
>
> To see a nicely formatted table of the changes you can put this relation
> ID into OSM Deep History which takes you to
> https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/2703380
> Here we can see that it was initially natural=wood, which was removed on
> 15/1/2013, restored on 8/11/2015, and removed again on 12/12/2018. This
> most recent changeset can be viewed at
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65393733 . Before making changes
> read the change comment and discussion as you aren't the first to query
> this change.
>
> Regards,
> Kim
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping tree cover

[Kim Oldfield via Talk-au]

On 8/10/21 2:17 pm, Andrew Harvey wrote:
On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd > wrote:


Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact
them to be able to find out what they are thinking?

If you're using the default iD editor, select a feature, then in the 
bottom left there is a link to view on OSM, which shows in the left 
panel who changed it last, but you can select "View history" at the 
bottom of the panel to see what and who changed it.


Or, when looking at openstreetmap.org, click the "Query features" arrow, 
then click somewhere in the Grampians, for example 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/query?lat=-37.20902=142.51812
Under Enclosing features, click on "Protected Area Grampians National 
Park" which takes you to https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2703380

You can click "View History" at the bottom of the relation page.

To see a nicely formatted table of the changes you can put this relation 
ID into OSM Deep History which takes you to 
https://osmlab.github.io/osm-deep-history/#/relation/2703380
Here we can see that it was initially natural=wood, which was removed on 
15/1/2013, restored on 8/11/2015, and removed again on 12/12/2018. This 
most recent changeset can be viewed at 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/65393733 . Before making changes 
read the change comment and discussion as you aren't the first to query 
this change.


Regards,
Kim

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

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd  wrote:

> Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be
> able to find out what they are thinking?
>

If you're using the default iD editor, select a feature, then in the bottom
left there is a link to view on OSM, which shows in the left panel who
changed it last, but you can select "View history" at the bottom of the
panel to see what and who changed it.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 13:04, Adam Horan  wrote:

> Some of the current gaps might be due to recent fires, and I don't know if
> they should be mapped as something else. Depending on the fire severity
> then it's possible the woodland will regrow quickly, slowly, or not for a
> long time. I assume there's some precedent & convention based on the large
> fires in the east a couple of years back.
>

I would argue it's still natural=wood after a fire since some trees will
survive and regrow. Tracking when it last burnt and the burn
intensity might be asking too much for OSM and might be best done as a
raster overlay potentially derived from satellite.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 13:32, EON4wd  wrote:

> Another part of the question is how many trees before it can be classified
> as such?
>

In Australia we have closed forest (dense canopy, little sunlight reaches
the ground), open forest (no continuous canopy), woodland (lower tree
density) which are all natural=wood. Then we have closed and open scrubland
(natural=scrub), heath (natural=heath), and more. Even up to 20m between
tree crowns could still be open woodlands and tagged as natural=wood.


> I have been to the Grampians within the last 12 months and I did not find
> any scorched area left. All trees had growth.
>

A good argument for leaving natural=wood intact after fires.


> If I look at the satellite picture from the OSM id editor, large areas
> look burnt. Look around Lake Wartook. All this area is definitely not burnt
> now and I think should classify as covered in trees. Other satellite images
> show this area better.
>
> I would agree that ‘natural’ areas should be separated from ‘boundary’
> layers.
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

[EON4wd]

Another part of the question is how many trees before it can be classified as 
such?

I have been to the Grampians within the last 12 months and I did not find any 
scorched area left. All trees had growth.

If I look at the satellite picture from the OSM id editor, large areas look 
burnt. Look around Lake Wartook. All this area is definitely not burnt now and 
I think should classify as covered in trees. Other satellite images show this 
area better.

I would agree that ‘natural’ areas should be separated from ‘boundary’ layers.

 

From: Adam Horan  
Sent: Friday, 8 October 2021 12:59 PM
To: EON4wd 
Cc: OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List 
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover

 

There is another aspect to your question, which is how to map woods/trees after 
a fire?

 

You're right it looks like someone has mapped the wooded areas as a relation 
with holes for non-wooded areas

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9300964/history

 

Some of the current gaps might be due to recent fires, and I don't know if they 
should be mapped as something else. Depending on the fire severity then it's 
possible the woodland will regrow quickly, slowly, or not for a long time. I 
assume there's some precedent & convention based on the large fires in the east 
a couple of years back.

 

Adam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:33, Adam Horan mailto:aho...@gmail.com> > wrote:

I think you're asking the same question as Andrew, but you possibly have 
different viewpoints or opinions on it.

 

I see the map as a painting that's becoming more detailed and accurate as time 
progresses. In the beginning the map was blank, and people added large areas of 
landcover just to get something down. Mappers took conveniences like marking a 
national park as all desert or all trees.

 

However now that all the basics have been done mappers are adding more 
detailed, accurate information and using more sophisticated tagging schemes.

 

I think it's entirely right that we map what's on the ground. If there's a 20m 
gap in the trees for a road, or significant fire break, or there's been 
clearing, then people should map that in detail if they have time and 
inclination.

 

Also the trees tend not to respect administrative boundaries, it's almost like 
they don't know they're there... Tree cover extends beyond the National Parks 
in a continuous run, and similarly there are clearings, lakes, meadows, 
moorlands within the parks.

 

However the first step in mapping this detail is to remove the blanket 
landcover from the admin boundary.

 

Adam

 

 

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd mailto:i...@eon4wd.com.au> > wrote:

Hi,

Further to Andrew Parkers question about forested areas.

I am also a casual user for uploading data and I also create my own maps from 
the data.

My interest is in 4wd tracks.

The Grampians has had the ‘landcover – tree’ ‘areas’ changed which in my 
opinion is now not correct.

See

https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867

The Grampians is a National park and is covered in trees.

There are a number of rocks and rocky outcrops (lots actually) and a few lakes 
and roads plus some swamp and rock quarries, but generally speaking it is 
completely covered in trees, everywhere, including the rocky outcrops.

I suspect that some well meaning person has mapped what they could see via a 
satellite image after a fire went though.

Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be able 
to find out what they are thinking?

Traditionally, the whole area is mapped as tree cover and then other features 
are added on top, such as the lakes and roads.

Also towards the SA border there are other treed areas that have been very 
carefully traced out. Yet traditionally the whole area is set with the fence 
lines and tracks then marked on top.

Not necessarily wrong, but tracing the exact line of where the trees finish and 
the road side has been cleared, is not really helpful. Or is it?

 

Thanks

Ian Winter

 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org <mailto: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] Mapping tree cover

[Adam Horan]

There is another aspect to your question, which is how to map woods/trees
after a fire?

You're right it looks like someone has mapped the wooded areas as a
relation with holes for non-wooded areas
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9300964/history

Some of the current gaps might be due to recent fires, and I don't know if
they should be mapped as something else. Depending on the fire severity
then it's possible the woodland will regrow quickly, slowly, or not for a
long time. I assume there's some precedent & convention based on the large
fires in the east a couple of years back.

Adam







On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:33, Adam Horan  wrote:

> I think you're asking the same question as Andrew, but you possibly have
> different viewpoints or opinions on it.
>
> I see the map as a painting that's becoming more detailed and accurate as
> time progresses. In the beginning the map was blank, and people added large
> areas of landcover just to get something down. Mappers took conveniences
> like marking a national park as all desert or all trees.
>
> However now that all the basics have been done mappers are adding more
> detailed, accurate information and using more sophisticated tagging schemes.
>
> I think it's entirely right that we map what's on the ground. If there's a
> 20m gap in the trees for a road, or significant fire break, or there's been
> clearing, then people should map that in detail if they have time and
> inclination.
>
> Also the trees tend not to respect administrative boundaries, it's almost
> like they don't know they're there... Tree cover extends beyond the
> National Parks in a continuous run, and similarly there are clearings,
> lakes, meadows, moorlands within the parks.
>
> However the first step in mapping this detail is to remove the blanket
> landcover from the admin boundary.
>
> Adam
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Further to Andrew Parkers question about forested areas.
>>
>> I am also a casual user for uploading data and I also create my own maps
>> from the data.
>>
>> My interest is in 4wd tracks.
>>
>> The Grampians has had the ‘landcover – tree’ ‘areas’ changed which in my
>> opinion is now not correct.
>>
>> See
>>
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867
>>
>> The Grampians is a National park and is covered in trees.
>>
>> There are a number of rocks and rocky outcrops (lots actually) and a few
>> lakes and roads plus some swamp and rock quarries, but generally speaking
>> it is completely covered in trees, everywhere, including the rocky outcrops.
>>
>> I suspect that some well meaning person has mapped what they could see
>> via a satellite image after a fire went though.
>>
>> Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be
>> able to find out what they are thinking?
>>
>> Traditionally, the whole area is mapped as tree cover and then other
>> features are added on top, such as the lakes and roads.
>>
>> Also towards the SA border there are other treed areas that have been
>> very carefully traced out. Yet traditionally the whole area is set with the
>> fence lines and tracks then marked on top.
>>
>> Not necessarily wrong, but tracing the exact line of where the trees
>> finish and the road side has been cleared, is not really helpful. Or is it?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Ian Winter
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Mapping tree cover

[Adam Horan]

I think you're asking the same question as Andrew, but you possibly have
different viewpoints or opinions on it.

I see the map as a painting that's becoming more detailed and accurate as
time progresses. In the beginning the map was blank, and people added large
areas of landcover just to get something down. Mappers took conveniences
like marking a national park as all desert or all trees.

However now that all the basics have been done mappers are adding more
detailed, accurate information and using more sophisticated tagging schemes.

I think it's entirely right that we map what's on the ground. If there's a
20m gap in the trees for a road, or significant fire break, or there's been
clearing, then people should map that in detail if they have time and
inclination.

Also the trees tend not to respect administrative boundaries, it's almost
like they don't know they're there... Tree cover extends beyond the
National Parks in a continuous run, and similarly there are clearings,
lakes, meadows, moorlands within the parks.

However the first step in mapping this detail is to remove the blanket
landcover from the admin boundary.

Adam


On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Further to Andrew Parkers question about forested areas.
>
> I am also a casual user for uploading data and I also create my own maps
> from the data.
>
> My interest is in 4wd tracks.
>
> The Grampians has had the ‘landcover – tree’ ‘areas’ changed which in my
> opinion is now not correct.
>
> See
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867
>
> The Grampians is a National park and is covered in trees.
>
> There are a number of rocks and rocky outcrops (lots actually) and a few
> lakes and roads plus some swamp and rock quarries, but generally speaking
> it is completely covered in trees, everywhere, including the rocky outcrops.
>
> I suspect that some well meaning person has mapped what they could see via
> a satellite image after a fire went though.
>
> Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be
> able to find out what they are thinking?
>
> Traditionally, the whole area is mapped as tree cover and then other
> features are added on top, such as the lakes and roads.
>
> Also towards the SA border there are other treed areas that have been very
> carefully traced out. Yet traditionally the whole area is set with the
> fence lines and tracks then marked on top.
>
> Not necessarily wrong, but tracing the exact line of where the trees
> finish and the road side has been cleared, is not really helpful. Or is it?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Ian Winter
>
>
> ___
> 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