Re: [OSM-talk-be] trees (in a row) vs. tree_row

[Marc Gemis]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:47 AM, joost schouppe  wrote:
> f you're looking for a wider range of opinions, do ask the same question in
> the tagging mailing list. I've come to kind of enjoy the merry-go-round
> discussions there, so I'm willing to ask for you and report here :)

Or ask it on help.openstreetmap.org

m

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] trees (in a row) vs. tree_row

[joost schouppe]

In the case you showed on Mapillary, I think I would leave a gap in between
two rows.

In general, I think the reason for using tree_row is just a matter of
mapping speed and what you can see: on an aerial picture, you can easily
make out a tree row, but it is harder to pin-point the exact location of
the trees. There's also the argument that we tend to only map individual
trees if they are "significant". Of course what makes a tree significant is
up to mapper discretion.

If you're looking for a wider range of opinions, do ask the same question
in the tagging mailing list. I've come to kind of enjoy the merry-go-round
discussions there, so I'm willing to ask for you and report here :)

2017-02-02 12:08 GMT+01:00 Karel Adams :

> Not hindered by any expertise or authority, I feel tempted to reply: if,
> in full foliage, they cast one continuous shadow, then it is a row; if not,
> they are separate trees.
>
> KA
>
> On 02/02/17 10:42, Pieter Brusselman wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> When do you decide that trees are closed enough into a line to map them as
> a tree_row or just map them as individual trees?
>
> for example: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.07764176804454=3.
> 5352408793126244=17=photo=EmDXwpiZawxLmLwO574imw
>
>
> Grtz,
> Pieter
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing 
> listTalk-be@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>
>


-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap  |
Twitter  | LinkedIn
 | Meetup

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

Re: [OSM-talk-be] trees (in a row) vs. tree_row

[Karel Adams]

Not hindered by any expertise or authority, I feel tempted to reply: if, 
in full foliage, they cast one continuous shadow, then it is a row; if 
not, they are separate trees.


KA


On 02/02/17 10:42, Pieter Brusselman wrote:


Hi,

When do you decide that trees are closed enough into a line to map 
them as a tree_row or just map them as individual trees?


for example: 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.07764176804454=3.5352408793126244=17=photo=EmDXwpiZawxLmLwO574imw



Grtz,
Pieter



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


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

[OSM-talk-be] trees (in a row) vs. tree_row

[Pieter Brusselman]

Hi,

When do you decide that trees are closed enough into a line to map them 
as a tree_row or just map them as individual trees?


for example: 
https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.07764176804454=3.5352408793126244=17=photo=EmDXwpiZawxLmLwO574imw



Grtz,
Pieter

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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

 Am 17.08.2015 um 01:30 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
 
 I am not aware about values that should be used in that case.


you are saying that landuse=forest is not a good tag to describe an area where 
trees have just been logged and will soon be planted again?


cheers 
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Warin]

On 17/08/2015 7:20 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
In that case it is perfectly OK to do not edit map and keep it as it 
was (yes, as I
understand it and it seems to be a widely used in this way - 
landuse=wood, natural=wood,

landcover=trees are used currently for the same objects).


Err disagree, they are not the same.
To me landuse=wood (or landuse=forestry) imply that the area is used 
to produce wood products.


There are areas that have trees .. that are NOT used to produce wood. 
Here I would use natural=wood (or tree/s), landcover=trees.




Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea and 
I would

support such proposal.

2015-08-17 10:58 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com:




sent from a phone

 Am 17.08.2015 um 01:30 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny
matkoni...@gmail.com mailto:matkoni...@gmail.com:

 I am not aware about values that should be used in that case.


you are saying that landuse=forest is not a good tag to describe
an area where trees have just been logged and will soon be planted
again?


cheers
Martin 





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


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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Mateusz Konieczny]

In that case it is perfectly OK to do not edit map and keep it as it was
(yes, as I
understand it and it seems to be a widely used in this way - landuse=wood,
natural=wood,
landcover=trees are used currently for the same objects).

Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea and I
would
support such proposal.

2015-08-17 10:58 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:



 sent from a phone

  Am 17.08.2015 um 01:30 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
 
  I am not aware about values that should be used in that case.


 you are saying that landuse=forest is not a good tag to describe an area
 where trees have just been logged and will soon be planted again?


 cheers
 Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 17.08.2015 13:20, Warin napisał(a):

On 17/08/2015 7:20 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:


In that case it is perfectly OK to do not edit map and keep it as it
was (yes, as I
understand it and it seems to be a widely used in this way -
landuse=wood, natural=wood,
landcover=trees are used currently for the same objects).


 Err disagree, they are not the same.
 To me landuse=wood (or landuse=forestry) imply that the area is
used to produce wood products.

 There are areas that have trees .. that are NOT used to produce wood.
Here I would use natural=wood (or tree/s), landcover=trees.


There is also one more important factor: tag usability (aka mapper 
friendliness).


How the mapper should know what type is it really and what should she do 
when she doesn't know all the details?


--
The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down [A. Cohen]


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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 16/08/2015, Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com wrote:
 2015-08-16 15:27 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com:

 landuse=forest does not imply the area is completely tree covered.

 Note that in typical usage it means exactly this. Maybe original intention
 was for that tag was to mean something else - but it is not changing how
 it is used by most mappers.

If only there was a good way to assert typical usage, we might have
managed to standardise on it and solve the problem by now.

The landuse=forest definition of area where trees are grown for
commercial purposes, expected to be covered by trees by default but
often also natural=scrub for about a decade after logging is fairly
typical too. FWIW, that's the definition I've been using in my
mapping, as all the others (managed, named, size, etc) seemed very
impractical.

If everyone adhered to my POV we wouldn't have a problem (sarcasm).
But I've given up hope of that happening, so the next best thing IMHO
is the landcover=trees reboot, which isn't perfect but which we can
hopefully agree on.


On 16/08/2015, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
 One could argue that natural=trees is a synonym for landcover=trees.

That'd work for me as well, it actually sounds much better. But
pragmatically I prefer to follow the more popular tag, unless I see
some strong consensus for natural=trees elsewhere.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 16/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 which landuse is good for an area where trees have just been logged and
 will soon be planted again?

landuse=forest, which I've always reasoned of as being landuse=forestry :)

 Which landuse value is suitable for an area
 where the trees have just been extinguished by a fire?

Same landsue as before the fire, if there was any.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

 Am 17.08.2015 um 11:20 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:
 
 Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea and I 
 would 
 support such proposal.


how do you suggest to put names? On locality nodes? On landuse objects? If you 
do the latter you will often have to make compromises, because of things that 
are part of the named forest but are different landuses, e.g. a lake, or 
buildings, campings, meadows, settlements, cemeteries etc.
You would also have to have overlapping landuse forest areas. I believe it's 
impractical to have it all in one tag: forest objects, the information where 
trees grow and where the landuse is forest. Multipoligon relations also impose 
a limit then how detailed you can get without loosing editability or even 
hitting api limits. 

Cheers 
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 17/08/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
 Am 17.08.2015 um 11:20 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:

 Probably landuse=forestry and landcover=trees would be a good idea and I
 would  support such proposal.


 how do you suggest to put names? On locality nodes? On landuse objects?

Usually on the landuse (or leisure or natural or...) area.

 If you do the latter you will often have to make compromises, because of 
 things
 that are part of the named forest but are different landuses, e.g. a lake,
 or buildings, campings, meadows, settlements, cemeteries etc.

That compromise is made all over OSM : we ignore the small areas
inside a landuse such as lakes, buildings, or corner shops in a
landuse=residential. Where to draw the line between too much detail
and too little is a very subjective decision.

 You would also have to have overlapping landuse forest areas.

When would you need that ?

 I believe it's
 impractical to have it all in one tag: forest objects, the information where
 trees grow and where the landuse is forest. Multipoligon relations also
 impose a limit then how detailed you can get without loosing editability or
 even hitting api limits.

The only detailed MP you really need is for landcover=trees, but
there's no reason to give this a name and therefore no reason to have
a single huge MP. You can split it arbitrarily to make it managable.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[moltonel 3x Combo]

On 17/08/2015, Warin 61sundow...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 17/08/2015 7:20 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
 In that case it is perfectly OK to do not edit map and keep it as it
 was

The problem with that is that the map will be wrong for 5-15 years
(depending on what kind of trees are being grown). I suggest tagging
the logged area as natural=scrub, and leave the overall
landuse=forest(ry) as-is.

 (yes, as I understand it and it seems to be a widely used in this way -
 landuse=wood, natural=wood,
 landcover=trees are used currently for the same objects).

 Err disagree, they are not the same.
 To me landuse=wood (or landuse=forestry) imply that the area is used
 to produce wood products.

 There are areas that have trees .. that are NOT used to produce wood.
 Here I would use natural=wood (or tree/s), landcover=trees.

Martin was talking about an area where the trees have recently been
logged (harvested), so this is absolutely about wood production.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

Am 17.08.2015 um 17:05 schrieb moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com:

 You would also have to have overlapping landuse forest areas.
 
 When would you need that ?


when a forest with a name is part of a bigger forest with a different name 


cheers 
Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Greg Troxel]

moltonel molto...@gmail.com writes:

 This is a perfect example of the confusion around landuse=forest vs
 natural=wood. Size and density ? Managed ? Named ? Usage type ? The
 curent osm data is a mix of all these criterias an more; at this stage
 it is hopeless for the consumer to extract more meaning than 'here be
 trees'. Landcover=trees is rightly calling these nuances a loss and
 trying a fresh clean approach.

landuse=forest does not imply the area is completely tree covered.  The
basic issue, which osm is starting to a address, is the distinction been
land use, a human geography concept which is about purpose, and land
cover which is about what is actually there.   It is true that there
are often correlations, but we should not assume those are 100%.

So I think landcover=trees for any area that is predominantly trees
makes sense.  And landuse=forest if it is in fact managed, or
landuse=conservation if the primary purpose is to preserve the land in a
natrual state.

One could argue that natural=trees is a synonym for landcover=trees.

One could also argue that landcover=trees is not appropriate for a
nursery.


Yes, this leads to many places having both a landuse and a landcover
tag.  I think that's fine.


pgpgRpcKDMTG5.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 15/08/2015 21:42, Lester Caine wrote:

My quick fix for any new rendering is simply to switch off 'farmland' so
that the tree blocks it masks actually display.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/245442613 is an example of the problem,
as are the adjacent areas to the right, while to the left the brown
areas are the local farm yards and the majority of the remaining cover
is farmland. trying to fill that with blocks of landcover is what seems
wrong here ...

For info, where are you seeing tree blocks masked? 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/245442613 is the outer of 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3318454 , and all the osm.org 
renderers seem OK with it - the non-holes in the farmland render as 
such, and inners such as http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/244873970 have 
tags that render.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Mateusz Konieczny]

2015-08-16 15:27 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com:


 landuse=forest does not imply the area is completely tree covered.


Note that in typical usage it means exactly this. Maybe original intention
was for that tag was to mean something else - but it is not changing how
it is used by most mappers.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 15/08/2015 20:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


... And then there are areas where actually trees grow, sometimes in a forest 
and sometimes elsewhere. That's where landcover trees seems appropriate for me.




Maybe a diary entry explaining your point of view on this in detail 
would help here - specifically real-world examples of something that is 
landcover=trees but not natural=wood, and what meaning you think 
natural=wood and landuse=forest have?  Pictures you've taken of the 
areas would be really helpful too.


FWIW when I looked at tree rendering (see 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/35220 ) I did look 
at the usage of landcover, with a view to incorporating it in the script 
the handles tree types there simply wasn't enough usage of it locally to 
even consider it (see 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org.uk/tags/landcover=trees ).


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Mateusz Konieczny]

I am not aware about values that should be used in that case.

2015-08-16 20:58 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com:


 2015-08-16 19:00 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:

 Note that in typical usage it means exactly this. Maybe original
 intention
 was for that tag was to mean something else - but it is not changing how
 it is used by most mappers.



 which landuse is good for an area where trees have just been logged and
 will soon be planted again? Which landuse value is suitable for an area
 where the trees have just been extinguished by a fire?

 Cheers,
 Martin

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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-08-16 16:19 GMT+02:00 ajt1...@gmail.com ajt1...@gmail.com:

 what meaning you think natural=wood and landuse=forest have?  Pictures
 you've taken of the areas would be really helpful too.



did you actually read what I have written above? Are there any specific
parts that weren't clear that I can try to explain better?

TL DR; 3 different concepts:
1. named entities
2. land destinated for a certain use
3. actual coverage of an area

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[ajt1...@gmail.com]

On 16/08/2015 21:27, Lester Caine wrote:
The tree areas that are within the farmland area are NOT now farmland 
and probably never were


Can you point to a tree area within farmland?  I couldn't see one when 
I had a quick look.  It's slightly confusing because the multipolygon is 
pulling the landuse tag from the outer, but it is a multipolygon.


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2015-08-16 19:00 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny matkoni...@gmail.com:

 Note that in typical usage it means exactly this. Maybe original intention
 was for that tag was to mean something else - but it is not changing how
 it is used by most mappers.



which landuse is good for an area where trees have just been logged and
will soon be planted again? Which landuse value is suitable for an area
where the trees have just been extinguished by a fire?

Cheers,
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[moltonel]

On 15 August 2015 14:23:09 GMT+01:00, Martin Koppenhoefer 
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
you are mistaken, the motivation for landcover was not connected to the
natural (as in nature) and managed idea. Usually the distinction
between wood and forest is size and density, the distinction between
natural and landuse is about named entities vs. the usage by man
attribute. A group of trees in the park is sometimes a wood but never a
forest. Landcover has a point besides trees (think grass for instance)

This is a perfect example of the confusion around landuse=forest vs 
natural=wood. Size and density ? Managed ? Named ? Usage type ? The curent osm 
data is a mix of all these criterias an more; at this stage it is hopeless for 
the consumer to extract more meaning than 'here be trees'. Landcover=trees is 
rightly calling these nuances a loss and trying a fresh clean approach.
-- 
Vincent Dp

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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 15.08.2015 15:23, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):


you are mistaken, the motivation for landcover was not connected to
the natural (as in nature) and managed idea. Usually the distinction
between wood and forest is size and density, the distinction between
natural and landuse is about named entities vs. the usage by man
attribute. A group of trees in the park is sometimes a wood but never
a forest. Landcover has a point besides trees (think grass for
instance)


I didn't say it was the motivation behind introducing landcover scheme. 
Wherever it came from and whatever is the difference between wood and 
the forest, it is a useful scheme in itself, as I wrote - although the 
higher level of uncertainity, the more useful it become.


It is always better to know something exactly than just have a general 
idea, BUT if you're not sure, it's better to say it clearly than pretend 
you know better. That's the recipe for a hidden disaster, like spreading 
entropy in the database and tag definitions.


--
The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down [A. Cohen]


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

[OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 15.08.2015 13:50, Christoph Hormann napisał(a):


The suggestion of using landcover=trees is generally based on the idea
that both landuse=forest and natural=wood have a distinct meaning and
there are tree covered areas which are neither of these.  But in
reality this is not the case and due to the widespread use of these
tags it is likely this will never happen, it would require a systematic
re-assessment of millions of features.


In my opinion suggestion of using landcover=trees is based on the lack 
of clarity of these tags. Forest suggests it is curated somehow 
(landuse), wood suggests it is not (natural), but nobody is sure 
anymore what they really mean (see their current definitions!). This is 
a major problem when widespread tags are source of confusion.


However landcover=trees is not a solution for this problem as a whole. 
It is a generic tagging scheme which holds its position even if we have 
both major tags clearly defined, because it is for the mappers to tell 
I don't know what kind of tree area is this exactly and that's why 
it's really needed. I may even think, that if we have used it from the 
beginning, we wouldn't have the problem of forest/wood at all.


Generic values are important to be as precise as it's possible and 
prevent people from cheating (especially tagging for renderer). That's 
why building=yes is so popular and why we have natural=water.


I like Dave F. proposition of having cascading tag scheme for all the 
tree areas very much:


landuse/landcover=wood/trees
managed=yes/no

I hope one day we will have something this elegant. Choosing landuse 
would overload the meaning of this tag (Land use is the human use of 
land.) in general, while landcover could be understatement in some 
cases, so maybe we should use natural (as in water), but let's not get 
distracted by such nuances in this moment.


The message is: it would be very good to have something general for tree 
areas and whether it would be based on landcover=trees or not, it is the 
most proper tag to use when in doubt.


--
The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down [A. Cohen]


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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees [was Re: OpenStreetMap Carto v2.33.0 release]

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

 Am 15.08.2015 um 14:58 schrieb Daniel Koć daniel@koć.pl:
 
 In my opinion suggestion of using landcover=trees is based on the lack of 
 clarity of these tags. Forest suggests it is curated somehow (landuse), 
 wood suggests it is not (natural), but nobody is sure anymore what they 
 really mean (see their current definitions!). This is a major problem when 
 widespread tags are source of confusion.
 
 However landcover=trees is not a solution for this problem as a whole.


you are mistaken, the motivation for landcover was not connected to the natural 
(as in nature) and managed idea. Usually the distinction between wood and 
forest is size and density, the distinction between natural and landuse is 
about named entities vs. the usage by man attribute. A group of trees in the 
park is sometimes a wood but never a forest. Landcover has a point besides 
trees (think grass for instance)

cheers 
Martin
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 15.08.2015 15:16, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):


IMHO it would rather encourage mappers to make more sense out of these
than it is now. I'm myself adding a pointless landuse=forest for every
landcover=trees now (for the renderer), and I guess most other mappers
do the same. I will remove them from non-forests as soon as the
landcover tag becomes visible


I asked about it here:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1724#issuecomment-128702817

but the issue is closed now without too detailed discussion. I guess we 
should at least create specific Wiki page to document it and try to 
define how it should be used, but I had no time to touch it and nobody 
else did it too.


I think after that I can open simple PR, so we can discuss it in detail.

--
The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down [A. Cohen]


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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[Dave F.]

Hi
I think that discussion should have been titled Stop tagging 
natural=wood and landuse=forest differently.


As I've said have a unified render just covers up that we're tagging 
incorrectly. There should only be one primary tag to describe large area 
of trees.


Whether it be landcover or landuse or whatever, I'm not that concerned 
about but it really should only be one option.


Cheers
Dave F.

On 15/08/2015 16:13, Daniel Koć wrote:

W dniu 15.08.2015 15:16, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):


IMHO it would rather encourage mappers to make more sense out of these
than it is now. I'm myself adding a pointless landuse=forest for every
landcover=trees now (for the renderer), and I guess most other mappers
do the same. I will remove them from non-forests as soon as the
landcover tag becomes visible


I asked about it here:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1724#issuecomment-128702817 



but the issue is closed now without too detailed discussion. I guess 
we should at least create specific Wiki page to document it and try to 
define how it should be used, but I had no time to touch it and nobody 
else did it too.


I think after that I can open simple PR, so we can discuss it in detail.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[Lester Caine]

On 15/08/15 16:31, Dave F. wrote:
 Whether it be landcover or landuse or whatever, I'm not that concerned
 about but it really should only be one option.

I think that there is a European definition for 'landuse' as part of the
standards?

Certainly the documentation I have for the NLPG database provides a
clean set of tags for the use of parcels of land. This is the 'Basic
Land and Property Unit' BLPU Classification, but I'm not sure where
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/11493%2F144275.pdf
fits in today ... that also links to the Eurosat LUCAS classifications.

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[Paul Norman]

On 8/15/2015 8:13 AM, Daniel Koć wrote:

I asked about it here:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1724#issuecomment-128702817 



but the issue is closed now without too detailed discussion


The issue was closed because it was solved - the rendering was unified. 
The topic of that issue was not landcover=trees.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

 Am 15.08.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com:
 
 As I've said have a unified render just covers up that we're tagging 
 incorrectly. There should only be one primary tag to describe large area of 
 trees.
 
 Whether it be landcover or landuse or whatever, I'm not that concerned about 
 but it really should only be one option.


why should there be just one tag for all kinds of forests and other areas where 
trees grow? Having a lot of forest with a proper name is very common in some 
areas and having them grouped into bigger areas of forest, with another name is 
common as well. And those might be grouped into even bigger areas of forest, 
with yet another name.

My idea is to use the natural key for these pieces of forest with a name 
(they might also comprise areas which aren't actually tree covered, like a 
meadow or a lake).

If you just put overlapping/nested areas with the name and not the info that 
it's for/from a forest, you loose something.

Then there are areas dedicated to growing trees, but sometimes there aren't 
actual trees there for the moment (e.g. trees have just been logged, or there 
was a fire, etc.). This is what I would use landuse=forest for.

And then there are areas where actually trees grow, sometimes in a forest and 
sometimes elsewhere. That's where landcover trees seems appropriate for me.


For rendering purposes, I would use a fill mainly for the landcover, while the 
names (and no fill) would come from natural. Landuse would be mainly for 
specialist maps, but of course this is up to the rendering style devs to 
ultimately decide.


cheers 
Martin 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 15.08.2015 21:42, Paul Norman napisał(a):

On 8/15/2015 8:13 AM, Daniel Koć wrote:

I asked about it here:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1724#issuecomment-128702817 
but the issue is closed now without too detailed discussion


The issue was closed because it was solved - the rendering was
unified. The topic of that issue was not landcover=trees.


Thanks for clarification, Paul - that's exactly what I suspected, but it 
was pure observation with no guessing implied. I just felt it was the 
best moment to talk about it on OSM lists before trying anything more 
with the rendering, because tree area problem is pretty complicated, as 
we all know.


--
The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags 
down [A. Cohen]


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

Re: [OSM-talk] landcover=trees

[Lester Caine]

On 15/08/15 20:59, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
 For rendering purposes, I would use a fill mainly for the landcover, while 
 the names (and no fill) would come from natural. Landuse would be mainly for 
 specialist maps, but of course this is up to the rendering style devs to 
 ultimately decide.

Having been investigating the 'farmland' problem ... and it is a PROBLEM
... I would tend to agree with that. The local blocks of farmland are a
conglomeration of landcover and changing sections to the ACTUAL cover is
going to be difficult. I do need to delete major blocks, but putting
them back is even harder work. The areas not 'block mapped' have all of
the field structure in place, but no 'farmland' boundary while the
directly adjacent areas have multipolygon structures which can not be
easily isolated to add all the fine detail of field boundaries.

My quick fix for any new rendering is simply to switch off 'farmland' so
that the tree blocks it masks actually display.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/245442613 is an example of the problem,
as are the adjacent areas to the right, while to the left the brown
areas are the local farm yards and the majority of the remaining cover
is farmland. trying to fill that with blocks of landcover is what seems
wrong here ...

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

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

Re: [OSM-talk] fences, trees and houses

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/11/21 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com:
 Hi Robin,

 one aspect which I think people forget when doing detailed mapping, is data
 maintenance in the future. It is very nice to have good and detailed data,
 but they become useless over time if not maintained. The more data you
 record, the bigger the maintenance task.
 I personally prefer good, but less detailed data covering larger areas to
 very detailed data restricted to small areas.


actually site property limits (at least in Europe for built-up areas,
but I guess mostly everywhere else as well) are much more stable than
most of the stuff we usually map in Openstreetmap (e.g. shops,
restaurants, cycleways, etc.). I agree that good data coverage is
desirable, but if a mapper has fun mapping his surroundings in highest
detail, let them do it.

cheers,
Martin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] fences, trees and houses

[Lester Caine]

Robin Paulson wrote:

i've done some quite detailed editing near where i live, i'd appreciate anyone
who is interested taking a look and responding.

i'm not sure what to make of the result. for one, my partner, a non-mapper, has
told me she finds it very confusing, which potentially raises questions

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.91503lon=174.77973zoom=16layers=M


Just keep up the good work ;)
How things are displayed are a matter for the renderers but if the information 
is not there it can't be displayed.


We do need a consistent way of adding the finer detail, but the available tags 
are currently providing that quite well. My own fine detail work is looking 
similar to yours ... 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=52.04891lon=-1.85708zoom=17layers=M


--
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-
Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk
Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] fences, trees and houses

[Christian Quest]

It's a rendering matter... looking a bit flashy with pink in private
alleys and green dots for trees.

Switch to MapQuest layer, you'll have another less flashy render:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.91503lon=174.77973zoom=16layers=http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.91503lon=174.77973zoom=16layers=M
Q


2012/11/21 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com


 Robin Paulson ro...@bumblepuppy.org writes:

  i've done some quite detailed editing near where i live, i'd
  appreciate anyone who is interested taking a look and responding.
 
  i'm not sure what to make of the result. for one, my partner, a
  non-mapper, has told me she finds it very confusing, which potentially
  raises questions
 
 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.91503lon=174.77973zoom=16layers=M

 I think it's important to separate what should be in the database vs
 what should be rendered.

 I find the rendering symbol for access=private ways to be unpleasing,
 because they have more visual weight than accessible ways.  I'd rather
 see them kind of greyed out.  I also think the 'access denied' coloring
 is in appropriate for ways that people wouldn't expect to be able to
 use, as opposed to ways where such rendering (to make the tagging known)
 has more communicative value.  As always, I like to go back to the USGS
 topo maps; there driveways are thin lines without any 'danger stay out'
 hints.

 The fences are confusing because people are used to seeing lot lines,
 and fences look almost like lot lines, but not quite.  And because
 fences look like lines that perhaps driveways should look like.  Again,
 a rendering issue as the default style is extended to show more
 elements, and I think it really points out that one size fits all for
 rendering can't be pleasing to everyone.

 I'm not sure what I think of the tree dots.  Again going back to USGS
 topo maps, I find it nice to know wooded (green tint) vs open (white
 background) areas.  This has to me far more information transfer than
 tree dots.  But I think it's good that the trees are in the db.

 Finally, I get the impression (didn't look at imagery) that buildings
 are less complete than fences.  That may contribute to the confusion.

 As a rendering nit, I find that the no-acess tint on the driveways
 extends into the middle of the navigable road, and that feels wrong, but
 I don't know how hard it is to fix.

 I would encourage you to set up your own rendering stack and play with
 alternatives.   I haven't done that, but it's on my todo list.

 ___
 talk mailing list
 talk@openstreetmap.org
 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk




-- 
Christian Quest - OpenStreetMap France -
http://openstreetmap.fr/u/cquesthttp://openstreetmap.fr/u/christian-quest
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] fences, trees and houses

[Cartinus]

On 11/21/2012 12:51 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
 
 Robin Paulson ro...@bumblepuppy.org writes:
 
 i've done some quite detailed editing near where i live, i'd
 appreciate anyone who is interested taking a look and responding.

 i'm not sure what to make of the result. for one, my partner, a
 non-mapper, has told me she finds it very confusing, which potentially
 raises questions

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.91503lon=174.77973zoom=16layers=M
 
 I think it's important to separate what should be in the database vs
 what should be rendered.
 
 I find the rendering symbol for access=private ways to be unpleasing,
 because they have more visual weight than accessible ways.

I wouldn't have tagged the driveways with access=private unless there
was a sign that actually says so. Not because of any rendering issue,
but because I am lazy and it doesn't really add any information.

I would hope that any routing application would treat highway=service +
service=driveway as access=destination automagically. Otherwise how are
you going to get pedestrian door-to-door routing for Inkerman Street
11/16.

---
m.v.g.,
Cartinus

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] fences, trees and houses

[Volker Schmidt]

 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:04:38 +1300
 From: Robin Paulson ro...@bumblepuppy.org
 To: OSM Talk talk@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: [OSM-talk] fences, trees and houses
 Message-ID: d5182e4471a0ec578b773c81e6d3e...@bumblepuppy.org
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed

 i've done some quite detailed editing near where i live, i'd appreciate
 anyone who is interested taking a look and responding.

 i'm not sure what to make of the result. for one, my partner, a
 non-mapper, has told me she finds it very confusing, which potentially
 raises questions

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.91503lon=174.77973zoom=16layers=M

 cheers,

 --
 robin

 http://universitywithoutconditions.ac.nz - Auckland's Free University


 Hi Robin,

one aspect which I think people forget when doing detailed mapping, is data
maintenance in the future. It is very nice to have good and detailed data,
but they become useless over time if not maintained. The more data you
record, the bigger the maintenance task.
I personally prefer good, but less detailed data covering larger areas to
very detailed data restricted to small areas.

Volker
(Padova, Italy)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] fences, trees and houses

[Kevin Peat]

On 21 November 2012 09:23, Cartinus carti...@xs4all.nl wrote:

 I wouldn't have tagged the driveways with access=private unless there
 was a sign that actually says so. Not because of any rendering issue,
 but because I am lazy and it doesn't really add any information.


I think service=driveway should infer access=destination unless
explicitly set otherwise. You should only use access=private where
signed. If you start tagging people's driveways as private then you
also need to use it for any way where there is no legal public right
of way such as in tourist attractions, on private ground, etc. which
makes no sense at all as you just end up with huge amounts of stuff
tagged as private.

If the missing buildings were added then the map would be less
confusing as the purpose of the driveways would then be apparent.

Kevin

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] fences, trees and houses

[Robin Paulson]

i've done some quite detailed editing near where i live, i'd appreciate 
anyone who is interested taking a look and responding.


i'm not sure what to make of the result. for one, my partner, a 
non-mapper, has told me she finds it very confusing, which potentially 
raises questions


http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.91503lon=174.77973zoom=16layers=M

cheers,

--
robin

http://universitywithoutconditions.ac.nz - Auckland's Free University

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] fences, trees and houses

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Robin Paulson ro...@bumblepuppy.org wrote:
 i've done some quite detailed editing near where i live, i'd appreciate
 anyone who is interested taking a look and responding.

 i'm not sure what to make of the result. for one, my partner, a non-mapper,
 has told me she finds it very confusing, which potentially raises questions

Hi Robin,

I find that my mapping preferences have changed over time, and
continue to do so.  Also, there is a range of mapping preferences in
the community.  Some prefer to add more detail, some add less.

Your mapping of your neighbourhood seems closer to the more detail
end of the scale. :-)

I expect you'll find a broad range of responses to your mapping, but
most importantly, what do you think of it?  Is that a level of detail
that you would like to continue with, as you map the rest of your
town?

Best regards and happy mapping,
Richard

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] fences, trees and houses

[Greg Troxel]

Robin Paulson ro...@bumblepuppy.org writes:

 i've done some quite detailed editing near where i live, i'd
 appreciate anyone who is interested taking a look and responding.

 i'm not sure what to make of the result. for one, my partner, a
 non-mapper, has told me she finds it very confusing, which potentially
 raises questions

 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-36.91503lon=174.77973zoom=16layers=M

I think it's important to separate what should be in the database vs
what should be rendered.

I find the rendering symbol for access=private ways to be unpleasing,
because they have more visual weight than accessible ways.  I'd rather
see them kind of greyed out.  I also think the 'access denied' coloring
is in appropriate for ways that people wouldn't expect to be able to
use, as opposed to ways where such rendering (to make the tagging known)
has more communicative value.  As always, I like to go back to the USGS
topo maps; there driveways are thin lines without any 'danger stay out'
hints.

The fences are confusing because people are used to seeing lot lines,
and fences look almost like lot lines, but not quite.  And because
fences look like lines that perhaps driveways should look like.  Again,
a rendering issue as the default style is extended to show more
elements, and I think it really points out that one size fits all for
rendering can't be pleasing to everyone.

I'm not sure what I think of the tree dots.  Again going back to USGS
topo maps, I find it nice to know wooded (green tint) vs open (white
background) areas.  This has to me far more information transfer than
tree dots.  But I think it's good that the trees are in the db.

Finally, I get the impression (didn't look at imagery) that buildings
are less complete than fences.  That may contribute to the confusion. 

As a rendering nit, I find that the no-acess tint on the driveways
extends into the middle of the navigable road, and that feels wrong, but
I don't know how hard it is to fix.

I would encourage you to set up your own rendering stack and play with
alternatives.   I haven't done that, but it's on my todo list.


pgpghABNMlIUE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Talk-GB] Trees and Streetlights in Trafford

[Christopher Osborne]

If someone out there has a thing about trees or streetlights, and happens to
live in the Manchester environs:
http://www.trafford.gov.uk/opendata/

-- 
Christopher Osborne
www.cloudsourced.com
twitter.com/osbornec
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-in] Trees

[H.S.Rai]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:

 I checked the style file - it gives 3x3 pixel size - which would need a
 microscope to see. I have changed it to 16x16 and site update is now going on.
 So by lunchtime you could have the shade from the tree for your picnic ;-)

Thanks. Got nice trees.

http://openstreetmap.org.in/?zoom=18lat=30.84587lon=75.86238layers=B

However needed to make it transparent. Please make .svg files
available. I will try to make it transparent.

-- 
H.S.Rai

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

Re: [Talk-in] Trees

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Thursday 17 Dec 2009 4:32:02 pm H.S.Rai wrote:
  I checked the style file - it gives 3x3 pixel size - which would need a
  microscope to see. I have changed it to 16x16 and site update is now
  going on. So by lunchtime you could have the shade from the tree for your
  picnic ;-)
 
 Thanks. Got nice trees.
 
 http://openstreetmap.org.in/?zoom=18amp;lat=30.84587amp;lon=75.86238amp;
 layers=B
 
 However needed to make it transparent. Please make .svg files
 available. I will try to make it transparent.
 

done
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Senior Project Officer
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/

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

Re: [Talk-in] Trees

[H.S.Rai]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
 On Wednesday 16 Dec 2009 8:31:55 pm H.S.Rai wrote:
  actually osmi has marker=tree - osm has landuse=wood which will render 2
  trees. If you put marker=tree, it will get rendered in osmi.
 
  I used natural=tree from JOSM.

 http://openstreetmap.org.in/?zoom=19amp;lat=30.84583amp;lon=75.86242amp;
 layers=B had white dot for tree, while there is nice symbol of tree
  tree.png. Last symbol in table India specific symbols, i.e
 http://openstreetmap.org.in/symbols/tree.png


 there is also marker=palm for a palm tree

I noticed. It is great, but tagging is golf specific.

In current version of file 7:10 a.m. Dec 17, 2009, has lines from 279 to 279:

Style name=tree
Rule
  MaxScaleDenominator1/MaxScaleDenominator
  Filter[marker]='tree'/Filter
  PointSymbolizer file= %SYMBOLS_DIR%/tree.png type=png
width=16 height=16 /
/Rule
/Style

and 7848 line has StyleNametree/StyleName for layer markers. That
mean I should get tree symbol in place of white spot.

-- 
H.S.Rai

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

Re: [Talk-in] Trees

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Thursday 17 Dec 2009 7:17:10 am H.S.Rai wrote:
 and 7848 line has StyleNametree/StyleName for layer markers. That
 mean I should get tree symbol in place of white spot.
 

if you put marker=tree anywhere in India, you will get a tree in OSMI
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Senior Project Officer
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/

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

Re: [Talk-in] Trees

[H.S.Rai]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:
 On Thursday 17 Dec 2009 7:17:10 am H.S.Rai wrote:

 if you put marker=tree anywhere in India, you will get a tree in OSMI

I am getting white dot, that mean OSM-I render nature=tree. After
reading style file, it looks it should render with nice tree.

Am I reading style file wrongly, or it is just matter of time, (i.e
next time it get rendered, things will be OK), or we it is MUST to tag
it as marker to get it rendered on Indian server?

-- 
H.S.Rai

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

Re: [Talk-in] Trees

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Thursday 17 Dec 2009 1:09:33 pm H.S.Rai wrote:
 On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org 
wrote:
  On Thursday 17 Dec 2009 7:17:10 am H.S.Rai wrote:
 
  if you put marker=tree anywhere in India, you will get a tree in OSMI
 
 I am getting white dot, that mean OSM-I render nature=tree. After
 reading style file, it looks it should render with nice tree.
 
 Am I reading style file wrongly, or it is just matter of time, (i.e
 next time it get rendered, things will be OK), or we it is MUST to tag
 it as marker to get it rendered on Indian server?
 

I checked the style file - it gives 3x3 pixel size - which would need a 
microscope to see. I have changed it to 16x16 and site update is now going on. 
So by lunchtime you could have the shade from the tree for your picnic ;-)
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Senior Project Officer
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/

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

Re: [Talk-in] Trees

[Kenneth Gonsalves]

On Thursday 26 Nov 2009 1:32:08 pm H.S.Rai wrote:
 I found tree is not being rendered on Indian OSM
 
 See green dot near post office.
 
 http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=30.845832amp;lon=75.862414amp;zoom=18a
 mp;layers=B000FTF
 
 Should we have tree on IOSM?
 

we have - it is marker=tree (needs to be corrected)
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves
Senior Project Officer
NRC-FOSS
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/web/

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

Re: [Talk-in] Trees

[H.S.Rai]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:

 we have - it is marker=tree (needs to be corrected)

Do I need to change tag, or style sheet will be corrected?

-- 
H.S.Rai

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

Re: [Talk-in] Trees

[H.S.Rai]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves law...@au-kbc.org wrote:

 actually osmi has marker=tree - osm has landuse=wood which will render 2
 trees. If you put marker=tree, it will get rendered in osmi.

I used natural=tree from JOSM.

-- 
H.S.Rai

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