Re: [Talk-GB] Nature Reserves project

[tshrub]

Hi Brian,

Brian Prangle schrieb:

Hi everyone

I've come up against a couple of problems and would like some guidance:

1.Nature reserves with one name that are made up of several other nature
reserves, often with their own name. How to represent these without a
mess of names rendering? Is there a relation to fit this situation?

you suppose, its to long for the map-layout?
An 'extra' relation just for denote? I don't think that.

see here:
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#some_examples>
(the first link is wrong ...). the second a relationbased mix of 
different status an areas.


name:uk="one name that are made up of several other nature reserves"
and
name:"shorter name"

than you find in the search also the strings from the long (usually on 
the map unseen) name

and on the map just the short name is shown.
( if you skipp even the short name, because its still perturbing, you 
just see the border (with leisure=nature_reserve) )





2. Berwyns NNR in Wales. This is huge and there's no copyright-free
resource (unless I can use the schematic map on a noticeboard at a
stile). I can either put a node somewhere (where?) or add a guessed
polygon which folk can amend each time they visit the area (disadvantage
is it gives the air of authoritative extent when rendered)

yes.
I would map ("exact" ;) ) approximations - with a tag note="open for 
harmonization" (or similar-sounding)









Regards

Brian



regards,
tshrub




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





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Nature Reserves

[tshrub]

Hey Dan,

Dan S schrieb:

2015-11-02 11:24 GMT+00:00 tshrub <my-email-confirmat...@online.de>:

Hey Dan,

Dan S schrieb:


Hi all,

I went to check out a local nature reserve. It's currently in OSM as a
leisure=park. I would like to tag as leisure=nature_reserve, but this
one is indeed also a publicly accessible park, so I don't like the
idea of removing the park tag.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188492303
The southern end of it is closed to the public, so at the moment my
inclination is to retag the main polygon as nature_reserve, and to tag
a smaller polygon as park. Any better ideas than that?


this area is listed neither in natura2000.eea.europa.eu nor in
protectedplanet.net.
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Nature-protected-area>
If
=4 there would be *active* habitat-/species-management (trespassing
restrictions) ?
=5 there are longtime developed or grown and *large* areas with interaction
of people ("scenic values" - Ecology Park?)
=7 smaller area, protecting nature-features, like some vegetation ... or for
recreation (scenic values?)

It seems to me like protect_class=7
The IUCN-code gave a basic and gives an orientation for OSM, but the
protect_class doesn't reflect exact the IUCN-code.

So far its possible to add

boundary=protected_area
+ protect_class=7
+ protection_title=Ecology Park
+ name=Bow Creek Ecology Park
...


*But* in fact:
on its website the area too looks to a bigger part like a "park", with its
typical nature-recreation features.
So on the other hand again leisure=park?


I'm sorry but I don't understand you. I'm confused.

I said, it looks for me more like a park
(excuse my English)



* There's an area (the southern part) which has no public access, for
habitat management.
if the restriction comes from / is supported by the 
*municipal/community*, I would say, the area-part can be tagged as 
protect_class=7.




* The rest of it is park-like, except to be honest it's not very
pretty or scenic!
I think it's designed to be a place to educate city
kids about wildlife and nature. Also apparently good for birdwatching.
* The website about the area is misleading, it tries to pretend it's a
"park" in the traditional sense of being a nice place for a gentle
stroll... don't let the website confuse you.
than, if its an offical website, it spreads or publicise, that "park" 
might be the aim of development?






I think you're right that it's not an official nature reserve, but I
don't know what re-tagging is best.

I'm living neither in London nor in Britain ...
so its up to you.

I wouldn't foil an offical view (maybe except its important for 
navigation).
So simply the entire area as park - or/and maybe separate the smaller 
restricted part as protect_class=7 ( as third tagging version :)  )



regards,
tshrub



Dan

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





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Nature Reserves

[tshrub]

Hey Dan,

Dan S schrieb:

Hi all,

I went to check out a local nature reserve. It's currently in OSM as a
leisure=park. I would like to tag as leisure=nature_reserve, but this
one is indeed also a publicly accessible park, so I don't like the
idea of removing the park tag.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/188492303
The southern end of it is closed to the public, so at the moment my
inclination is to retag the main polygon as nature_reserve, and to tag
a smaller polygon as park. Any better ideas than that?
this area is listed neither in natura2000.eea.europa.eu nor in 
protectedplanet.net.

<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Nature-protected-area>
If
=4 there would be *active* habitat-/species-management (trespassing 
restrictions) ?
=5 there are longtime developed or grown and *large* areas with 
interaction of people ("scenic values" - Ecology Park?)
=7 smaller area, protecting nature-features, like some vegetation ... or 
for recreation (scenic values?)


It seems to me like protect_class=7
The IUCN-code gave a basic and gives an orientation for OSM, but the 
protect_class doesn't reflect exact the IUCN-code.


So far its possible to add

boundary=protected_area
+ protect_class=7
+ protection_title=Ecology Park
+ name=Bow Creek Ecology Park
...


*But* in fact:
on its website the area too looks to a bigger part like a "park", with 
its typical nature-recreation features.

So on the other hand again leisure=park?


regards,
tshrub






Thanks
Dan

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





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Nature Reserves

[tshrub]

Hey Brian,


> Hi tshrub

> I looked at the WDPA licence
from that link, I think:
<http://www.unep-wcmc.org/policies/wdpa-data-licence>


> abd found this in it
> The WDPA Materials may not be sub-licensed in whole or in part 
including within Derivative Works without the prior written permission 
of UNEP-WCMC


> Has anybody asked permission do you know?
I found in a first run that:
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Potential_Datasources#World_Database_on_Protected_Areas_.28WDPA.29_.28Rejected.29>
<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WDPA_data_use_email_request>


I just use single WDPA-data information (mostly IUCN-level).
In witch range you plan to use the data?

Ask the WDPA again ("WDPA_data_use_email_request"). The last request 
seems to be six years ago.
And ask, which data in which coverage or range - and what is explicit 
deprecate.




> The OSM wiki page on WDPA is very well-written but makes no mention 
of whether the data is open for OSM purposes.

which page?




a german wikipedia WDPA-version tells *about* that:
<https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Database_on_Protected_Areas#Nutzungsrechte_der_Datenbank>
---
The database is, inter alia, through a web based online interface 
accessible at all times and provides its data under the Conservation 
Commons to the general public. Nevertheless, there are further 
restrictions on use:

the database will not be used commercially.
The database or its use may not be licensed in any further way.
If data material partially or completely used in publications, each 
of the current status needs to be used. Furthermore, the reference to 
the source is required and calls for the sending of two copies of the 
publication.
For online information used one insists on putting a link to the 
database. [http://www.protectedplanet.net/terms. broken]


As registered users interested in data for further use of the database 
can be downloaded to their own systems. However, the ability to utilize 
these data sets, a geographic information system (GIS) and the 
interpretation of the KML format requires possibility

---


I'm no registered user.






> Regards

> Brian


regards,
tshrub


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Nature Reserves

[tshrub]

Hey Brian,


Brian Prangle schrieb:

Thanks for the simplification of that huge wiki down to 2 tags - I can
cope with that!

The protected planet website looks like a useful resource but
unfortunately it has this copyright statement : © ProtectedPlanet
2014-2015. All rights reserved.  So we shouldn't use it.So what do I
use as a source for Natura 2000 status?

Another special NATURA 2000 viewer: <http://natura2000.eea.europa.eu/>

talk to the local municipality, the resort for nature care or a similar 
societies or non-governmentals.
Some governments provides protected-areas-website like: 
<http://www.geodienste.bfn.de/schutzgebiete/> with IUCN-categories**.


All Natura 2000 areas are for protect_class=97, for "protected by 
continental agreements":
the NATURA2000-network - Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) is builded 
or composed by

# Bird, ... -Sites - Special Protection Areas (SPAs),
# Habitats Sites - Sites of Community Importance (SCIs) and
# some marine environments
<http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/index_en.htm>, in the 
wiki a "continental" protect-status.


*continental* (97) and *international* (98) status are centralised 
respectively to one protect_class to reduce the wikis complexity and 
because those status might be less important: they are mostly more 
"awards" than directives or rule-informations (these are on "lower" 
level areas). (Its still possible, bringing those status onto the 
protect_class too, may in the 70th or 80th numbers, but ...)


untill now, NATURA 2000-seperations (to SPAs, SCIs, marine) are 
possible, or allotted by "additional keys" like

# protection_title=* (Special Protection Area (SPA) - NATURA 2000 (SAC)),
# protection_object=* (birds),
any maybe ref-notations, in this format
# ref:ABBR:name=* + ref:ABBR:source=* + ref:ABBR:category=* + ref:ABBR=*
for example a wdpa-ID 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Database_on_Protected_Areas>: 
ref:WDPA=1234567 or more near "NATURA 2000" ref:SPA=UK123401
(its just suppose. There should be registers with the IDs of SACs 
(or/and SPAs, SCIs and marins) ... I'll look for a register ...


so in a web- or OSM-search, you might find "NATURA 2000 (SAC)" etc.. 
That is the point.
I just see, lots of user named the area just "NATURA 2000". Its no name 
and wrong on my view. Maybe it can follow the name, like: "Dunes of 
glory (NATURA 2000)"...



> ... copyright statement ... All rights reserved
**btw.: On my view, the taxpayers are financing the WDPA ... and/but 
"Protected Planet was ... largely funded by investment from the private 
sector." 
(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Database_on_Protected_Areas>) - I 
think, belongs more to the website technc itself. And to the data: they 
hadn't OSM on their mind. ... I don't know. you can take their 
website-infos for a first orientation and than ask the municipality ... 
maybe even the ProtectedPlanet-maker are wrong sometimes, so you get 
more serious data.



UK Protected Site websites
<http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=4>
<http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/db_gis/index_en.htm#sites>







Also isn't the tag leisure=nature_reserve?

oh - a scatty annotation alongside me. sorry, yes, sure.
(because the "leisure" is more unfitting for me than "landuse" ... )



regards,
tshrub




Regards

Brian
**
**
**
**

On 26 October 2015 at 12:23, tshrub
<my-email-confirmat...@online.de
<mailto:my-email-confirmat...@online.de>>
wrote:

Hey Brian,

Brian Prangle schrieb:

Do we need to tag Natura 2000 SACs and SPAs?  I've looked at the
protected_area wiki page and quite frankly lost the will to
live. From
looking at taginfo the tagging schema doesn't appear to be too
popular
in the UK.


someone from the UK should try to "familiarise" or incorporate
Britains tagging schema into the table?

<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dprotected_area#Nature-protected-areas>


by areal access or action restictions, you have different types or
layers. For example: a SAC often emerged out of an (old) nature
reserve, so a SAC commonly covers and overlap(!) one. And those both
might again covered (partial) from another type...

you know that site: <http://www.protectedplanet.net/>
there are too britain areas and you can deviate protect_classes



a SAC would be
    boundary=protected_area
+ protect_class=97

for nature reserves
+ protect_class=4
I still use in addition landuse=nature_reserve because of visualisation



regards,
tshrub



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
<mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

[Talk-GB] Best practice to add stabilisation types to shores and banks

[tshrub]

main object is, to mark ways with the type of shoreline stabilisations, 
such as „boulder-packs“ or sheet piling: 



tag-combination:
- barrier=wall
- material=stone (metal, wood, plastic)
- wall=boulder (fascine, breakwater, groyne, sheet_piling, wattle_work, 
tetrapod_blocks)


technical issue:
does problems cause by fragmenting the ways a little more into sections 
to give them the stabilisation feature?

# single ways waterway=stream, waterway=river und
# areas waterway=riverbank, natural=water
(I don't think so)

may be introducing a new value from the beginning like 
barrier=stabilisation + stabilisation=boulder
because wall is actually for „freestanding structures“, but „barrier“ 
might fit: restrict or prevent against the elements ... Or (what I 
think) later, if wished, afterwards?


Double values like „sheet_piling; boulder“ are depreciated? Sometimes, 
on bottom they set a sheet piling and on top you see a boulder ballasting.


For single waterways with *unequal* stabilisations:
- wall:left=boulder
- wall:right=fascine
Or
- boulder=left
- fascine=right
in this case, is it possible to set
- wall=boulder; fascine
(I would prefer first)

Are my choosen value-terms common in the english language area?
I'm not sure for this „boulder“ ballasting (see photo-link above).

The „stabilisation-tags“ are interesting from skipper, tourists up to 
landscape history.

In middle-europe, stabilisations are all-round.


best,
t.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] Apple trees around Cambridge

[tshrub]

hi,

SK53 schrieb:

Hi Dan,

I've had enough trouble with cherry trees on the north side of
Cambridge: you really need flowers, leaves  fruit to be able to do them
properly! Some are flowering cherries (loosely /Prunus serratula/,
others are passable eaters or jam makers, so presumably cultivars of
/Prunus avium/); and plenty are on a /Prunus avium/ rootstock even if
other kinds of cherry.


but when its a project and their talking about varieties, there will be 
a contact person, how knows specie, variety, sort


natural:tree
type=broad_leafed
species=Prunus avium
species:en=Cherry
height=8.5


and I think very importend is, to fix or remember or register the kind 
or *sort of fruit*, because there are so many and often they become 
forgotten by time.



simular for beer with brewery=

may be use a tag like
brand=
for the predominant aspect.

and
brand:rootstock=


may be, we should add it to the tree-wiki-tag?
(upcomming, in times of genetic 'illusions' or 'hightspreads' ;)  )





see too:
http://mundraub.org/map


and additional:
picking=self
fee=no




best,
t.





Jerry

On 7 December 2014 at 20:09, Dan S
danstowell+...@gmail.com
mailto:danstowell+...@gmail.com wrote:

Hi all,

I heard of something that will be fun for someone who likes mapping
trees!

There's a project in Cambridge that is planting many apple trees, one
of each variety, in a pattern centred around the south of Cambridge.
It's said to be an art project called Cambridge Community
Collection:
http://www.cambridgecommunitycollection.co.uk/

So, some lucky people near Cambridge have an opportunity to deploy
their advanced tree tagging skills :)

Best
Dan

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




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





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

Re: [Talk-GB] Apple trees around Cambridge

[tshrub]

hi,

SK53 schrieb:

Regarding your suggestion of brand as a tag: this was exactly why I
suggested the taxon tag rather than species long ago.
I read about that. Taxon is less common spelling and wouldn't work on 
that reason, I think. Everyone knows, what species are. Its more easygoing.







Japanese flowering cherries have such complicated genetics that the
species they originate from is not clear.They are therefore referred to
in the botanical and horticultural literature as follows /Prunus
/'Kanzan'; for apples we can use /Malus domestica/ 'Bramley Seedling'
or /Malus domestica/ 'MacIntosh' (for fanbois), but note /Malus
/Granny Smith' because its precise specific origin is not known
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granny_Smith.
I would never say that I'm realy sure, particularly in that 
genetic-based nomenclatura-reformation times.



species=Malus
or
species=Malus spec.
or
species=Malus domestica
brand=Bramley Seedling

brand=MacIntosh

brand=Granny Smith

isn't it suffice and handsome?



may be an additional tag for
sitting on an rootstock=
or for an company an additional one
label=Mr. Blingblang






Plants have specific conventions for naming (think how OSM will look
after 250 years of tagging): ICBN for wild plants and ICNCP for
cultivated ones. We are best sticking with these.

a nomenclatura
OSM is no botanical database (another job), but can become connected 
therewith.









Even if the trees planted are named on the labels, experience shows that
plant nurseries are not infallible (we have a purported Cork Oak which
is /Quercus robur/ in our local arboretum).

yes.
Thats our assignment than? :)






best,
t.




Jerry

On 8 December 2014 at 14:17, tshrub
my-email-confirmat...@online.de
mailto:my-email-confirmat...@online.de
wrote:

hi,

SK53 schrieb:

Hi Dan,

I've had enough trouble with cherry trees on the north side of
Cambridge: you really need flowers, leaves  fruit to be able to
do them
properly! Some are flowering cherries (loosely /Prunus serratula/,
others are passable eaters or jam makers, so presumably cultivars of
/Prunus avium/); and plenty are on a /Prunus avium/ rootstock
even if
other kinds of cherry.


but when its a project and their talking about varieties, there will
be a contact person, how knows specie, variety, sort

natural:tree
type=broad_leafed
species=Prunus avium
species:en=Cherry
height=8.5


and I think very importend is, to fix or remember or register the
kind or *sort of fruit*, because there are so many and often they
become forgotten by time.


simular for beer with brewery=

may be use a tag like
brand=
for the predominant aspect.

and
brand:rootstock=


may be, we should add it to the tree-wiki-tag?
(upcomming, in times of genetic 'illusions' or 'hightspreads' ;)  )





see too:
http://mundraub.org/map


and additional:
picking=self
fee=no




best,
t.




Jerry

On 7 December 2014 at 20:09, Dan S
danstowell+...@gmail.com
mailto:danstowell%2b...@gmail.com
mailto:danstowell+osm@gmail.__com
mailto:danstowell%2b...@gmail.com
wrote:

 Hi all,

 I heard of something that will be fun for someone who likes
mapping
 trees!

 There's a project in Cambridge that is planting many apple
trees, one
 of each variety, in a pattern centred around the south of
Cambridge.
 It's said to be an art project called Cambridge Community
 Collection:
http://www.__cambridgecommunitycollection.__co.uk/
http://www.cambridgecommunitycollection.co.uk/

 So, some lucky people near Cambridge have an opportunity to
deploy
 their advanced tree tagging skills :)

 Best
 Dan

 _
 Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.__org
mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.__org/listinfo/talk-gb
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




_
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.__org/listinfo/talk-gb
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




_
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.__org/listinfo/talk-gb
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org

[Talk-GB] about tagging zones

[tshrub]

Hi,

what you think about the following proceeding for tagging zones of an area.
Following is usable for OSM?


First: in my view it would be logic, to ticket a relation with name 
(name=Zone *) etc. and make it by a further parent relation to a zone 
(name=Area X).

But Disadvantages:
# more complicate for user (has to get along with parent  child-stuff, 
non-named lines/ways)

# bad rendered in Mapnik (double drawing lines, names inappropriate placed)




so I would propose:
# Linien/Ways get a zone-namen
- name=Zone * (Area X)

# Relation-areas (outer/inner-role, object) get a zone-tagg and typ-tagg
- boundary=protected_area
- protect_class=2
- type=multipolygon
- site_zone=*

# the collective outer border gets a further relation with the main-area 
name

- boundary=protected_area
- protect_class=2
- type=multipolygon
- name=Area X





a propose by Martin:
for ticketing the zones (site_zone), there can be introduced further 
differentiated taggs like:

# if common usings
- buffer_zone=*
- habitat_buffer_zone=*
- catchment_zone=*
- water_catchment_zone=*
...
# if contamination
- utilisation_zone=*
- noise_exposure_zone=*
- emission_zone=*
- industrie_emission_zone=*
- traffic_emission_zone=*
...

the values might be mostly numbers.


regards, t.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] building zones

[tshrub]

hi,

just to ensure, for a final answer - what you users think, we should go 
on with?


even in mind to be penny-wise with relations,
the only  best choice to declare zones of an area I see is, to give a 
relation to every zone

and that in this kind:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Multipolygon_Examples#Wiese_mit_Farmland_mit_zwei_W.C3.A4ldern_mit_Buschwerk_.28Polygone_.C3.BCber_4_Ebenen_verschachtelt.29
its an alteration of outer/inner-relation-areas with a single area 
relation in the center. That gives you the area-size too.

So you have for an area with zones as many relations as zones are.

An alternativ would be, to work with parent/child relations, but, 
disregarding of the boring JOSM-GUI in this case (may be by intention? I 
used them once, but can´t find fast in again ...), you would have one 
parent relation more.


Or does anybody see another technic (forward-looking)?

regards, t.


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] building zones

[tshrub]

hi,

Err..sorry to be dumb,

sorry too! (about my dict.-english ... )

but I have read this three times and still have no
idea what this is about.
What problem are you trying to solve?
What is a Building Zone?

may be no lucky item:
not _a_ -, but fabricate- or establish zones:
question about the best way, to mark _zones of an area_,
(for protected areas: center-zone, second-(buffer-)zone, ...)

above I linked to one method, to build some rings - thats how those 
zones look like mostly.
But, even if they are joining, they seems to me a littel separated, I 
would have a better feeling, if I can keep those rings/zones more 
together(or is that enough?).

Therefor I could use the relation-parent/child-model, but first:
relations are not too favoured in osm and second:
its mutch more complicated.




Is this something to do with telling the renderer what order to draw things?

may be
but first, just to save data in a forward-looking way.

...


is there meanwhile any established method, to tagg zones?


regards


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb