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

[tshrub]

Hey Dan,

Dan S schrieb:

2015-11-02 11:24 GMT+00:00 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.

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

[Dan S]

2015-11-02 11:24 GMT+00:00 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.
> 
> 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.
* There's an area (the southern part) which has no public access, for
habitat management.
* 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.

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

Dan

___
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.


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

[SK53]

Designation tag is already is use to discriminate between LNRs & NNRs (I'm
not quite sure what partiticular status LNRs have but it is referred to as
a designation on the Magic site). Otherwise no: most NRs will be a mosaic
of different physical types, even woods will have rides, ponds, and little
meadows. Parks are a special case: most will think of them as parks rather
than NRs (although visits will be for the nature), which is why I was
wondering about a nature_reserve=yes tag rather than a duplicate way. I
also suspect that most such cases will be in cities: although the odd
country park may figure.

Jerry

On 1 November 2015 at 21:42, Rob Nickerson 
wrote:

> Do you think there is a need to separate the legal (i.e. LNR, NNR) from
> the "physical" (landuse of grass, wood etc or leisure=park) by making use
> of the designation tag? We ended up doing this for rights of way.
>
> Regards,
> Rob
>
> ___
> 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:



> 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:




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:

---
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: 

talk to the local municipality, the resort for nature care or a similar 
societies or non-governmentals.
Some governments provides protected-areas-website like: 
 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
, 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 
: 
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." 
() - 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









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
>
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?




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: 
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

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

[Brian Prangle]

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?

Also isn't the tag leisure=nature_reserve?

Regards

Brian



On 26 October 2015 at 12:23, tshrub  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: 
> 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
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] Quarterly Project: Nature Reserves

[Brian Prangle]

I've looked at Jerry's umap ( great resource Jerry - can you update it at
the end of Oct so we can see progress with fewer blue and red dots?) and
the Natural England OpenData source and there seems to be a significant
amount of data inaccuracy in my local area: Solihull Council lists 21 LNRs
but the Natural England OpenData file has only about half that number. Is
it just a local issue or has anyone else found this as well?

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.

Regards

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

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

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 25/10/2015 14:42, Brian Prangle wrote (in a slightly different order):

> 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.

:)

I'm guessing that, a bit like rights of way, the tagging will sort 
itself out.  Actually working out the bounds of the reserve itself is 
the hard bit.


Only today I walked past one "welcome to Lathkill Dale NNR" sign, then 
at some point exited (no sign) and then entered again past a different 
"welcome to Lathkill Dale NNR" sign.  It's a familiar problem - I went 
path several signs on the south wales coast earlier this month whether 
one side of a reserve was clearly marked but the other wasn't.  You 
could I suppose align to walls, fences and hedges (and in extremis the 
sea), but in many cases there are several plausible possibilities for 
boundaries.  Sometimes there's a "sign at each corner" like at 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/53745064 , but it's rare.


> and the Natural England OpenData source and there seems to be a 
significant amount of data inaccuracy in

> my local area

Is that actually genuine, OS IP free, proper OGL licensed "Open" data?  
At the start of the month earlier in this thread Jerry commented:


> There are Natural England datasets for National NRs, Local NRs and 
SSSIs. I think these are under OGL these
> days, but like PRoW or Land Registry inspire data, they may 
incorporate OS MasterMap data, and I have

> always treated them as not fully open.

I had assumed that Natural England datasets such as these (also access 
land, see 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2015-August/thread.html#17638 
) were at the very least not "whiter than white" for the reasons 
discussed in that thread.  Fine for a uMap to survey and monitor 
progress by, but not for OSM itself.


... and of course there's the issue of "a significant amount of data 
inaccuracy" in the available datasets that you mention, which is another 
issue entirely.


Cheers,

Andy



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