Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[James Derrick]

On 16/12/2019 12:32, Andy Townsend wrote:


  * Firstly, I only tend to add farmland etc. after I've added fences,
walls, ditches, gates, bits of woodland etc. (it's just easier
that way around).
  * If the crop extends right up to the hedge, I'd tend to have the
hedge sharing nodes with both fields.
  * If there's a ditch, track or other separating feature I'd try and
draw the hedges either side (if they exist) and have the farmland
not sharing nodes with the ditch but with the hedge (if it
exists).  Similarly I wouldn't attach farmland to roads.
  * If there's an uncultivated strip around the edge of the field I
wouldn't tend to include that in the "field". Similarly if an area
is left as scrub (perhaps to wet for crops), I'd map as scrub.


+1

After several years mapping Northumberland (about 60% complete!), that's 
almost exactly the same style I've landed on.



Adding boundaries and rivers first helps get a feel for the area, then 
adding individual polygons is easier with the follow tool in JOSM.


Large areas of one polygon are a PITA to maintain later - e.g. if a 
meadow is ploughed up, or a housing estate appears. (I know - I've 
cursed my own previous less detailed mapping several times...)



Also to help with maintenance, I separate roads from landuse UNLESS in 
upland areas where there may be less field boundaries but 
barrier=cattle_grid visible which means the sheep really are in the 
middle of the highway.


And, please don't chop up roads into little segments so one way can be 
used in four area relations (my least favourite maintenance PITA). Your 
future self will be happier if you draw separate lines! :-)



My own practice is to show a pattern of cultivation with different tags 
such as farmland, meadow, scrub, heath. In Northumberland this can give 
additional information at large scales as height limits the types of 
farming which are viable as you rise inland from the coast.


And yes, farmers do indeed plough up grazing land and rotate crops - I 
try to map what is visible from cycle survey, and different imagery 
providers whilst accepting it's not going to be as canonical as a 
housing estate!


TTFN,


James

James
--
James Derrick
li...@jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England
I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me...
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Roger Calvert]

Round here (Cumbria), that would have sheep on it. When I did school 
geography, it was called Rough Pasture.


Roger

On 16/12/2019 14:13, Martin Wynne wrote:
I'm happy to use "farmland" to mean cultivated land, whether for cash 
crops, pasture for livestock, haymaking, any farming activity.


But I keep finding myself on land for which none of the available tags 
really seem to apply. There seems to be one missing. For example:


 http://85a.uk/bredon_960x640.jpg

Beyond the hedge is clearly farmland. But I don't think any of 
farmland/grassland/scrub/meadow properly describes the foreground 
area. I believe the technical term is "unimproved grassland" but I 
would most likely call it "hillside". Here is some more of it:


 http://85a.uk/bredon1_960x640.jpg

Is it perhaps "heath"? That usually means an open level area of 
"heather", on acidic sandy soil. The wiki says: "don't use heath for 
areas primarily covered by non-woody plants like grasses - use 
natural=grassland or landuse=meadow instead".


cheers,

Martin.

___
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] What is farmland?

[Martin Wynne]

I'm happy to use "farmland" to mean cultivated land, whether for cash 
crops, pasture for livestock, haymaking, any farming activity.


But I keep finding myself on land for which none of the available tags 
really seem to apply. There seems to be one missing. For example:


 http://85a.uk/bredon_960x640.jpg

Beyond the hedge is clearly farmland. But I don't think any of 
farmland/grassland/scrub/meadow properly describes the foreground area. 
I believe the technical term is "unimproved grassland" but I would most 
likely call it "hillside". Here is some more of it:


 http://85a.uk/bredon1_960x640.jpg

Is it perhaps "heath"? That usually means an open level area of 
"heather", on acidic sandy soil. The wiki says: "don't use heath for 
areas primarily covered by non-woody plants like grasses - use 
natural=grassland or landuse=meadow instead".


cheers,

Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[SK53]

I tend to map to field boundaries: it's all farmland in my view, just not
necessarily productive. In particular strips of grass around arable may be
a short-term consequence of various subsidy schemes, or game cover crops.
Many ditches are there to improve the drainage of the fields so I'd see
them as an integral part of farmland. Similarly hedges, although now
protected, were an essential means of stock control in the days when many
farms were mixed (as they were in my childhood) and fields may have
regularly rotated between pasture & arable.

One type of vegetation on unproductive farmland which is quite common is
"tall herb". These might be the very unwelcome swathe of nettles in a field
corner where the plough cant reach, or thistles & Great Willowherb along a
slope down to a stream (these are classes C3.1 & C3.2 in the Phase 1
habitat classification, see wiki
),
but also stands of Japanese Knotweed or Rosebay Willowherb. They are
distinct from scrub because they die down in winter, although dead stems
may remain.

Jerry

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 12:34, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 16/12/2019 11:59, Gareth L wrote:
>
> I’m all for using a polygon per field, but am unsure what to do at the 
> boundaries. Do I make 2 field polygons meet? Or leave a gap as there’s a 
> track/hedge/fence/small coppice/ ditch/drain ? I’m probably not going to be 
> able to map the boundary particularly accurately in a first pass, so would 
> rather omit than put in inaccurate barriers
>
>
> If it helps, here's what I tend to do:
>
>- Firstly, I only tend to add farmland etc. after I've added fences,
>walls, ditches, gates, bits of woodland etc. (it's just easier that way
>around).
>- If the crop extends right up to the hedge, I'd tend to have the
>hedge sharing nodes with both fields.
>- If there's a ditch, track or other separating feature I'd try and
>draw the hedges either side (if they exist) and have the farmland not
>sharing nodes with the ditch but with the hedge (if it exists).  Similarly
>I wouldn't attach farmland to roads.
>- If there's an uncultivated strip around the edge of the field I
>wouldn't tend to include that in the "field".  Similarly if an area is left
>as scrub (perhaps to wet for crops), I'd map as scrub.
>
> None of this is definitive - people have different approaches.  If you
> want examples of the above, have a look in my changeset history from > 3
> months ago in the East Riding of Yorkshire for example
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/75049826 etc.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> 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] What is farmland?

[Philip Barnes]

On Monday, 16 December 2019, Gareth L wrote:
> I’m all for using a polygon per field, but am unsure what to do at the 
> boundaries. Do I make 2 field polygons meet? Or leave a gap as there’s a 
> track/hedge/fence/small coppice/ ditch/drain ? I’m probably not going to be 
> able to map the boundary particularly accurately in a first pass, so would 
> rather omit than put in inaccurate barriers 
> 
> Any suggestions?
> 
I map fields so that the join, the draw the barrier along the boundaries.

I did have a play with how farmland could look using SomeoneElses style.

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/8437076/70870550-98f07780-1f8c-11ea-8be2-121003d9f3a0.png

Phil (trigpoint) 

-- 
Sent from my Sailfish device
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Andy Townsend]

On 16/12/2019 11:59, Gareth L wrote:

I’m all for using a polygon per field, but am unsure what to do at the 
boundaries. Do I make 2 field polygons meet? Or leave a gap as there’s a 
track/hedge/fence/small coppice/ ditch/drain ? I’m probably not going to be 
able to map the boundary particularly accurately in a first pass, so would 
rather omit than put in inaccurate barriers


If it helps, here's what I tend to do:

 * Firstly, I only tend to add farmland etc. after I've added fences,
   walls, ditches, gates, bits of woodland etc. (it's just easier that
   way around).
 * If the crop extends right up to the hedge, I'd tend to have the
   hedge sharing nodes with both fields.
 * If there's a ditch, track or other separating feature I'd try and
   draw the hedges either side (if they exist) and have the farmland
   not sharing nodes with the ditch but with the hedge (if it exists). 
   Similarly I wouldn't attach farmland to roads.
 * If there's an uncultivated strip around the edge of the field I
   wouldn't tend to include that in the "field".  Similarly if an area
   is left as scrub (perhaps to wet for crops), I'd map as scrub.

None of this is definitive - people have different approaches. If you 
want examples of the above, have a look in my changeset history from > 3 
months ago in the East Riding of Yorkshire for example 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/75049826 etc.


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Gareth L]

I’m all for using a polygon per field, but am unsure what to do at the 
boundaries. Do I make 2 field polygons meet? Or leave a gap as there’s a 
track/hedge/fence/small coppice/ ditch/drain ? I’m probably not going to be 
able to map the boundary particularly accurately in a first pass, so would 
rather omit than put in inaccurate barriers 

Any suggestions?

Gareth 

> On 16 Dec 2019, at 11:38, Tony OSM  wrote:
> 
> Mapping Fields - preferred method I think is individual fields, or at least 
> polygons which are based on road or natural boundaries. Mea Culpa - I have 
> also mapped farmland as larger polygons.
> 
> Large polygons make life difficult when a field changes use - near where I 
> live it becomes scrub for several years before being developed for 
> housing/industrial/retail.
> 
>> On 16/12/2019 10:21, Philip Barnes wrote:
>>> On Monday, 16 December 2019, David Groom wrote:
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Dave F via Talk-GB" 
>>> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
>>> Sent: 14/12/2019 15:54:13
>>> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?
>>> 
>>>> On 14/12/2019 15:19, Martin Wynne wrote:
>>>>> Is this "farmland"?
>>>>> 
>>>>>  http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg
>>>> I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.
>>>> 
>>>> I concur with your frustration about 'huge multi polygons', especially 
>>>> when joined to other features such as roads & rivers. I believe a few 
>>>> mappers were keen to fill in the gaps rather than map accurately. 
>>>> Personally I think there should be one polygon per field, but I admit that 
>>>> makes for a lot more work.
>>>> 
>>> I see no benefit to mapping individual fields as separate polygons
>>> tagged as farmland if adjacent fields are also farmland. Could you
>>> explain why you think this is best?
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>> Large polygons make future editing very difficult.
>> 
>> It is very beneficial to differentiate between arable, pasture and hopefully 
>> we can get real meadow back from the misuse it has received.
>> 
>> Farming use changes, mapping individual fields allows farmland types or 
>> other changes to be maintained far easier than if it is part of a huge 
>> polygon.
>> 
>> All in all it goes to make for a better more usable map.
>> 
>> Phil (trigpoint)
> 
> ___
> 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] What is farmland?

[SK53]

One thing for me is that if walking in the winter knowing that a particular
field which a footpath crosses is arable can be very useful. If have COPD
(around 40% lung capacity) and walking across a recently ploughed field can
push me past the level where my breathing can cope. Obviously I therefore
like to avoid such places if I can or plan for them in calculating route
time (probably a factor of 4 or 5 over what one might expect from actual
distance).

I think there are over 1 million people with COPD in Britain, so I'm
probably not alone. I suspect many just avoid exposing themselves to such
situations:

There are other reasons which others have alluded too.

Jerry

On Mon, 16 Dec 2019 at 10:09, David Groom  wrote:

> -- Original Message --
> From: "Dave F via Talk-GB" 
> To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Sent: 14/12/2019 15:54:13
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?
>
> On 14/12/2019 15:19, Martin Wynne wrote:
>
>
> Is this "farmland"?
>
>  http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg
>
>
> I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.
>
> I concur with your frustration about 'huge multi polygons', especially
> when joined to other features such as roads & rivers. I believe a few
> mappers were keen to fill in the gaps rather than map accurately.
> Personally I think there should be one polygon per field, but I admit that
> makes for a lot more work.
>
> I see no benefit to mapping individual fields as separate polygons tagged
> as farmland if adjacent fields are also farmland. Could you explain why you
> think this is best?
>
> David
>
>
>
> Cheers
> DaveF
>
> ___
> 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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Tony OSM]

Mapping Fields - preferred method I think is individual fields, or at 
least polygons which are based on road or natural boundaries. Mea Culpa 
- I have also mapped farmland as larger polygons.


Large polygons make life difficult when a field changes use - near where 
I live it becomes scrub for several years before being developed for 
housing/industrial/retail.


On 16/12/2019 10:21, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Monday, 16 December 2019, David Groom wrote:

-- Original Message --
From: "Dave F via Talk-GB" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 14/12/2019 15:54:13
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?


On 14/12/2019 15:19, Martin Wynne wrote:

Is this "farmland"?

  http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg

I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.

I concur with your frustration about 'huge multi polygons', especially when joined 
to other features such as roads & rivers. I believe a few mappers were keen to 
fill in the gaps rather than map accurately. Personally I think there should be one 
polygon per field, but I admit that makes for a lot more work.


I see no benefit to mapping individual fields as separate polygons
tagged as farmland if adjacent fields are also farmland. Could you
explain why you think this is best?

David


Large polygons make future editing very difficult.

It is very beneficial to differentiate between arable, pasture and hopefully we 
can get real meadow back from the misuse it has received.

Farming use changes, mapping individual fields allows farmland types or other 
changes to be maintained far easier than if it is part of a huge polygon.

All in all it goes to make for a better more usable map.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Tony OSM]

I have always thought that farmland as an English word means land used 
for production by growing things - cabbages, cows etc. Hierarchy then 
led to arable, pasture, horticulture. But what do you do with managed 
woodland eg coppiced or pollarded or left to semi-wild animal 
populations eg deer, swine?


Fields also have a habit of having several uses determined by a farmer  
- pasture/grass for silage, arable/grazing stubble. These also change 
over time.


Climate has a highly important role in determining what farming is 
carried out - west side of England is predominantly pasture, east side 
of England predominantly arable. Wales and Scotland also have altitude 
to modify farming practice


Can we agree a hierarchy and notation method to this deceptively simple 
question and then update the wiki.


Tony

TonyS999

On 16/12/2019 10:21, Philip Barnes wrote:

On Monday, 16 December 2019, David Groom wrote:

-- Original Message --
From: "Dave F via Talk-GB" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 14/12/2019 15:54:13
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?


On 14/12/2019 15:19, Martin Wynne wrote:

Is this "farmland"?

  http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg

I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.

I concur with your frustration about 'huge multi polygons', especially when joined 
to other features such as roads & rivers. I believe a few mappers were keen to 
fill in the gaps rather than map accurately. Personally I think there should be one 
polygon per field, but I admit that makes for a lot more work.


I see no benefit to mapping individual fields as separate polygons
tagged as farmland if adjacent fields are also farmland. Could you
explain why you think this is best?

David


Large polygons make future editing very difficult.

It is very beneficial to differentiate between arable, pasture and hopefully we 
can get real meadow back from the misuse it has received.

Farming use changes, mapping individual fields allows farmland types or other 
changes to be maintained far easier than if it is part of a huge polygon.

All in all it goes to make for a better more usable map.

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

16 Dec 2019, 11:07 by revi...@pacific-rim.net:

> -- Original Message --
> From: "Dave F via Talk-GB" <> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> >
> To: > talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
> Sent: 14/12/2019 15:54:13
> Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?
>
>
>> On 14/12/2019 15:19, Martin Wynne wrote:
>>
>>>  
>>> Is this "farmland"?
>>>  
>>>  >>> http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg
>>>
>>  
>> I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.
>>  
>> I concur with your frustration about 'huge multi polygons', especially when 
>> joined to other features such as roads & rivers. I believe a few mappers 
>> were keen to fill in the gaps rather than map accurately. Personally I think 
>> there should be one polygon per field, but I admit that makes for a lot more 
>> work.
>>
>>
> I see no benefit to mapping individual fields as separate polygons tagged as 
> farmland if adjacent fields are also farmland.  Could you explain why you 
> think this is best?
>
Allows to distinguish between one huge
field and multiple small, less likely to
degenerate into uneditable multipolygon
with far too many ways.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[David Woolley]

On 16/12/2019 10:07, David Groom wrote:
I see no benefit to mapping individual fields as separate polygons 
tagged as farmland if adjacent fields are also farmland. Could you 
explain why you think this is best?




I see no reason why mapping individual fields would not be an objective 
for OSM.  In that case, tagging them as farmland seems the sensible 
thing to do.


As always, the level of detail will depend on the priorities of mappers, 
and if no-one in the area is interested in fields, the detail might be 
limited to tens of square kilometres.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[David Groom]

-- Original Message --
From: "Dave F via Talk-GB" 
To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org
Sent: 14/12/2019 15:54:13
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?


On 14/12/2019 15:19, Martin Wynne wrote:


Is this "farmland"?

 http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg


I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.

I concur with your frustration about 'huge multi polygons', especially when joined 
to other features such as roads & rivers. I believe a few mappers were keen to 
fill in the gaps rather than map accurately. Personally I think there should be one 
polygon per field, but I admit that makes for a lot more work.

I see no benefit to mapping individual fields as separate polygons 
tagged as farmland if adjacent fields are also farmland. Could you 
explain why you think this is best?


David




Cheers
DaveF

___
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] What is farmland?

[Warin]

On 15/12/19 04:12, John Aldridge wrote:

On 14-Dec-19 16:52, SK53 wrote:
Like Dave I have come to the view that mapping individual fields as 
farmland is a good way to do it.


I too concur. Here's the diary entry I wrote when I was doing the 
fields round here...


I have at least some crop fields where livestock go in after harvest to 
much on the stubble... so multiple use.


https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jpsa/diary/17738


Nice entry there John. Some of 'my' fields abut one another so there is 
no gap. Others have patches of scrub inside them, some have water ways 
part way through them. There is rather a lot of the country side here 
that is not mapped and a fair proportion of it are these crop lands. To 
give you an idea of the size .. many times the area of UK. Urban areas 
get more attention as there are more visitors and more mappers there.


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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[John Aldridge]

On 14-Dec-19 16:52, SK53 wrote:
Like Dave I have come to the view that mapping individual fields as 
farmland is a good way to do it.


I too concur. Here's the diary entry I wrote when I was doing the fields 
round here...


https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/jpsa/diary/17738

Cheers,
John

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[SK53]

Like Dave I have come to the view that mapping individual fields as
farmland is a good way to do it.

I use farmland=arable & farmland=pasture. This still does not cover cases
of permanent grassland which are not used for pasture. I can see the value
of farmland=livestock for things like pig rearing which I have never tried
to map (largely because I think they move around).

The advantage of doing it field by field is that one can use real local
knowledge from surveys, can discriminate between fields which are
apparently similar on aerial imagery, can add more detailed tagging (for
instance I have used some plant community tagging in one or two areas, or
one can mark pastures with ridge and furrow). The absence of large polygons
is of course a significant benefit.

Meadow as a synonym for any old bit or rural grassland creates huge
problems if we ever want to identify real meadows which are one of the
scarcest habitats in Britain now. Such usage also covers a range of quite
different things. It is well established that people no longer know what a
true meadow looks like, but I'd hope we can be more sophisticated. Most
meadows will be available in various classes of Natural England habitat
open data. CRW have similar datasets, as do SNH. Unfortunately nothing is
available for Northern Ireland, although I've been informed by a former
head of the NIEA that Perennial Ryegrass is now the national plant : in
other words most agricultural grassland is heavily improved whether as
pasture or as leys for silage crops.

W.r.t. Mark's point, there are open data

from RPA for the past few years on agricultural usage, so it is possible to
use a bit more than guesswork. Note also much aerial imagery in the
countryside may be significantly out-of-date. I've both walked through
areas which look like arable on aerials with sheep on them and areas of
pasture have subsequently been ploughed (notably on what was formerly part
of Muston Meadows NNR). The RPA data at least allows a more up-to-date
picture. It's a hexgrid derived from remote sensing, but in most cases can
be interpreted.

Regards,

Jerry

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019 at 16:24, Edward Catmur via Talk-GB <
talk-gb@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Some mappers use meadow for permanent pasture, on the basis that this is a
> fundamentally different use of land to putting it under the plough.
>
> Others believe that meadow should be reserved for "real" meadow, and that
> permanent pasture should be distinguished from cropland by some combination
> of sub tags.
>
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2019, 16:09 Martin Wynne,  wrote:
>
>> > I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.
>>
>> Thanks Dave.
>>
>> But in that case, how on OSM do we differentiate between the two?
>>
>> It seems silly that in some areas of OSM we can go into ridiculous
>> detail, such as whether a bench seat has a backrest, but vast tracts of
>> land which visually look very different are classed as one and the same?
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> Martin.
>>
>> ___
>> 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 mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Edward Catmur via Talk-GB]

Some mappers use meadow for permanent pasture, on the basis that this is a
fundamentally different use of land to putting it under the plough.

Others believe that meadow should be reserved for "real" meadow, and that
permanent pasture should be distinguished from cropland by some combination
of sub tags.

On Sat, 14 Dec 2019, 16:09 Martin Wynne,  wrote:

> > I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.
>
> Thanks Dave.
>
> But in that case, how on OSM do we differentiate between the two?
>
> It seems silly that in some areas of OSM we can go into ridiculous
> detail, such as whether a bench seat has a backrest, but vast tracts of
> land which visually look very different are classed as one and the same?
>
> cheers,
>
> Martin.
>
> ___
> 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] What is farmland?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 14/12/2019 16:08, Martin Wynne wrote:

I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.


Thanks Dave.

But in that case, how on OSM do we differentiate between the two?


I would have said farmland=arable/livestock, but it doesn't appear to be 
that popular.Have you searched the wiki or 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=livestock#values ?




It seems silly that in some areas of OSM we can go into ridiculous 
detail, such as whether a bench seat has a backrest, but vast tracts 
of land which visually look very different are classed as one and the 
same?


You can map in as much detail as you like. northing's really stopping 
you. Others haven't, I'd suggest, because it's 'over there' - Cities, 
where most benches are, are also where the most mappers are. People will 
almost always map what's on their doorstep as a priority.


Cheers
DaveF

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Mark Goodge]

On 14/12/2019 16:08, Martin Wynne wrote:

I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.


Thanks Dave.

But in that case, how on OSM do we differentiate between the two?

It seems silly that in some areas of OSM we can go into ridiculous 
detail, such as whether a bench seat has a backrest, but vast tracts of 
land which visually look very different are classed as one and the same?


That's partly because our mappers tend to be more urban, and urban 
things are what they tend to care more about and have more knowledge 
about. But, also, it's often hard to map rural areas from observation as 
a lot of it is private property that can't easily be accessed other than 
along the route of public rights of way. So we're more reliant on the 
aerial imagery for a lot of the countryside, and in many cases it's 
impossible to tell the difference between arable and grassland as it's 
all just shades of green (or, in summer, brown). In the same way, you 
can't easily see field boundaries on aerial photography unless they're 
separated by something easily visible, such as a hedgerow.


So I don't think this is an easily solvable problem, at least not 
without a lot of groundwork and local knowledge.


Mark

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Dan S]

Op za 14 dec. 2019 om 16:09 schreef Martin Wynne :
>
> > I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.
>
> Thanks Dave.
>
> But in that case, how on OSM do we differentiate between the two?

using an added tag farmland=*

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/keys/farmland


> It seems silly that in some areas of OSM we can go into ridiculous
> detail, such as whether a bench seat has a backrest, but vast tracts of
> land which visually look very different are classed as one and the same?

The bench-with-backrest is a good example: generic tags for generic
tagging, and the possibly to add more detailed tags progressively.

Cheers
Dan

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Martin Wynne]

I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.


Thanks Dave.

But in that case, how on OSM do we differentiate between the two?

It seems silly that in some areas of OSM we can go into ridiculous 
detail, such as whether a bench seat has a backrest, but vast tracts of 
land which visually look very different are classed as one and the same?


cheers,

Martin.

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

Re: [Talk-GB] What is farmland?

[Dave F via Talk-GB]

On 14/12/2019 15:19, Martin Wynne wrote:


Is this "farmland"?

 http://85a.uk/haws_hill_960x600.jpg


I would say yes, as I believe both arable & livestock is farmland.

I concur with your frustration about 'huge multi polygons', especially 
when joined to other features such as roads & rivers. I believe a few 
mappers were keen to fill in the gaps rather than map accurately. 
Personally I think there should be one polygon per field, but I admit 
that makes for a lot more work.


Cheers
DaveF

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