ndrew Ayre [mailto:a...@britishideas.com]
Sent: 20 July 2009 17:09
To: osm
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world
mapping ...
I've been adding the national forests in Arizona, and the Wikipedia
definition doesn't fit too well. There are areas here tha
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:24:10 +1000, Liz wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Tyler wrote:
>> Liz,
>> I would classify most eucalyptus spp. as deciduous (though judging by
>> your
>> genus compositions you're in Australia, and I don't know what the
species
>> do there), and probably classify casuarina spp
Liz:
> the broad categories in the UNEP-WCMC system make sense but the terms don't
cover "Mallee" and the most common type of surviving Australian forest "dry
sclerophyll" is a term very few mappers would be familiar with.
The UNEP-WCMC spec specifically says "Temperate broadleaf and mixed" co
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:59:41 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2009/7/23 Liz :
>> The end result of my quick check is that
>> 1. European or northern hemisphere categories of forest are incompatible
>> with
>> Australian flora.
>> 2. Standardised category names may be meaningless to mappers who
2009/7/23 Liz :
> The end result of my quick check is that
> 1. European or northern hemisphere categories of forest are incompatible with
> Australian flora.
> 2. Standardised category names may be meaningless to mappers who aren't going
> to use them if they don't understand them.
can't really s
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Tyler wrote:
> Liz,
> I would classify most eucalyptus spp. as deciduous (though judging by your
> genus compositions you're in Australia, and I don't know what the species
> do there), and probably classify casuarina spp as coniferous... but that's
> a bad classification syste
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:37:32 +1000, Liz wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Alice Kaerast wrote:
>> There is also another property which hasn't been considered - type of
>> trees. Evergreen vs. Deciduous might be nice to know. Ordnance survey
>> maps differentiate between coniferous and non-coniferou
--- On Wed, 22/7/09, Liz wrote:
> Another Venn diagram problem.
> Our trees are neither coniferous or deciduous, and the
> alternate is "mixed"
Add to that Gum trees are evergreen :)
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lis
Liz,
I would classify most eucalyptus spp. as deciduous (though judging by your
genus compositions you're in Australia, and I don't know what the species do
there), and probably classify casuarina spp as coniferous... but that's a
bad classification system. That's like saying "this apple is green,
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Alice Kaerast wrote:
> There is also another property which hasn't been considered - type of
> trees. Evergreen vs. Deciduous might be nice to know. Ordnance survey
> maps differentiate between coniferous and non-coniferous and has
> symbols for coppice and orchard.
Another
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Alice Kaerast wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:48:17 +0100
> Andy Allan wrote:
>
>
>>
>> So we have (at least) three orthogonal properties
>> a) Are there trees, swamp, mud or rocks on the ground (land cover)
>>
2009/7/22 Alice Kaerast :
> There is also another property which hasn't been considered - type of
> trees. Evergreen vs. Deciduous might be nice to know. Ordnance survey
> maps differentiate between coniferous and non-coniferous and has
> symbols for coppice and orchard.
no, it already is consid
--- On Wed, 22/7/09, Alice Kaerast wrote:
> There is also another property which hasn't been considered
> - type of
> trees. Evergreen vs. Deciduous might be nice to
> know. Ordnance survey
> maps differentiate between coniferous and non-coniferous
> and has
> symbols for coppice and orchard
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:48:17 +0100
Andy Allan wrote:
>
> So we have (at least) three orthogonal properties
> a) Are there trees, swamp, mud or rocks on the ground (land cover)
> b) Is the area used for forestry, recreation or military training
>
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Tyler wrote:
> eh... I'm less fond of this, just because I'm not sold on there being 1 and
> only 1 land use for an area but I have no supporting evidence to back up my
> iffy feeling
Many areas-with-trees in the UK are used for both forestry and
mountain biking.
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> yes, land_use=forestry perhaps implies land_cover=trees,
Not when they've all just been chopped down :-)
land_use=forestry
land_cover = mud_treestumps_and_woodchips
But seriously, there's a difference between an area being used
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> yes, land_use=forestry perhaps implies land_cover=trees,
Not when they've all just been chopped down :-)
land_use=forestry
land_cover = mud_treestumps_and_woodchips
But seriously, there's a difference between an area being used for
forestry
What about reorganizing the structure of the wiki to be something like this?
Basically any item would fall into three main categories - boundary,
landcover or land_use. The boundary or the land_use should be the first
layer then the landcover. For instance, within a park you could have trees,
rocks
(Sorry Tom, for the double sending, I didn't check the reply to: field)
Tom:
> I'd really like to nominate someone like Nick Whitelegg as Countryside Tsar
for a day, so he could work out the different basic features we need to
know about in the countryside and an appropriate tagging schema. The
On Tuesday 21 Jul 2009 21:20:49 Gustav Foseid wrote:
> Because is see forests as something fundamentally different from a few
> trees in the corner of a park.
That's fine, but the question is how to tag that difference, and whether people
can agree on the point at which you switch tags. Nobody ca
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Tom Chance wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 Jul 2009 19:37:15 Gustav Foseid wrote:
> > I would prefer a combination of natural=trees for smaller areas covered
> > with trees, typically within urban areas, and natural=forest for larger
> > forests or areas with forest like e
Martin Koppenhoefer writes:
> 2009/7/21 Milo van der Linden :
>> May I suggest looking at what people at the CORINE landcover dataset
>> have defined?
>>
>> http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover/at_download/file
>> they have a nomenclature describing a classification that is studi
On Tuesday 21 Jul 2009 19:37:15 Gustav Foseid wrote:
> I would prefer a combination of natural=trees for smaller areas covered
> with trees, typically within urban areas, and natural=forest for larger
> forests or areas with forest like eco systems.
Why?
You know how big it is from, err, the size
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> of course it is studied. And it surely is usable in some way, but as
> far as I have seen (it's 163 pages) it doesn't deal at all with
> national parks and other protective areas (that's also logical, as
> this is not landcover but leg
2009/7/21 Milo van der Linden :
> May I suggest looking at what people at the CORINE landcover dataset
> have defined?
>
> http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover/at_download/file
> they have a nomenclature describing a classification that is studied and
> looks usable to me.
of cours
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Milo van der Linden wrote:
> May I suggest looking at what people at the CORINE landcover dataset
> have defined?
>
And we prepare in France an import of the Corine Land Cover data for
the whole country (about 200.000 polygons).
We wrote a wiki page about the conve
May I suggest looking at what people at the CORINE landcover dataset
have defined?
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover/at_download/file
they have a nomenclature describing a classification that is studied and
looks usable to me.
Martin Koppenhoefer schreef:
> 2009/7/21 Tyler
--- On Tue, 21/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > Although it's hard to tell where the ACT is because
> state borders don't seem to render at higher levels or when
> I fixed them up I over looked something.
>
> yes, that's an issue, there is this rendering problem
> (already filed a
> bugre
2009/7/21 Tyler :
>> In some cases they are so large that they're used to help orientate
>> yourself on a map. With out them the map looks less map like.
>
> Correct, Washington State looks naked as low zoom levels without its
> corresponding parks and national forests.
than you have to add more d
2009/7/21 John Smith :
>
> --- On Tue, 21/7/09, Tyler wrote:
>
>> landuse. While I'm not convinced national parks,
>> national forest wilderness areas,
>> federal/state/county/municipal wildlife reserves
>> shouldn't be solid fill areas in renderers,
well, imagine a well mapped place, where every
>
> In some cases they are so large that they're used to help orientate
> yourself on a map. With out them the map looks less map like.
Correct, Washington State looks naked as low zoom levels without its
corresponding parks and national forests.
I think that national parks are a feature with par
--- On Tue, 21/7/09, Tyler wrote:
> landuse. While I'm not convinced national parks,
> national forest wilderness areas,
> federal/state/county/municipal wildlife reserves
> shouldn't be solid fill areas in renderers, I have no
> argument that boundary="reserve type" is
> inadequate. I do think
Martin,
I agree with you. I like the idea of using natural=whatever for landcover
and landuse=whatever for the landuse. While I'm not convinced national
parks, national forest wilderness areas, federal/state/county/municipal
wildlife reserves shouldn't be solid fill areas in renderers, I have no
ar
2009/7/21 maning sambale :
> Landuse and Landcover are two different things although in some cases
> interchangeable.
it doesn't change my point: there can be different reserves /
protective areas at the same area (air, water, natural, ...), together
with different "OSM-defined" landuses like for
Landuse and Landcover are two different things although in some cases
interchangeable.
--
cheers,
maning
--
"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all" -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
2009/7/20 Tyler :
>> What would you then use for a 200 square kilometer continous forest?
>
> landuse=nature_reserve
actually I wouldn't use landuse for natural reserves, they are
boundaries (similar to political/administrative ones), within you can
find several different landuses. They should be
On Monday 20 Jul 2009 19:10:06 David Lynch wrote:
> I'm also thinking that deprecating both landuse=forest and
> natural=wood might be a good idea if this goes forward. Replace it
> with natural=trees
Perfect!
Clearly disambiguates the fact that you have trees from the many other
concerns.
Rega
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 13:33, Gustav Foseid wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, David Lynch wrote:
>>
>> I'm also thinking that deprecating both landuse=forest and
>> natural=wood might be a good idea if this goes forward. Replace it
>> with natural=trees, which is just as self-explanitory,
>
> What would you then use for a 200 square kilometer continous forest?
>
natural=trees
landuse=nature_reserve
bigfoot_habitat=yes
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, David Lynch wrote:
> I'm also thinking that deprecating both landuse=forest and
> natural=wood might be a good idea if this goes forward. Replace it
> with natural=trees, which is just as self-explanitory, and which (to
> this particular mapper) sounds like a bett
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:59, Tom Chance wrote:
> On Monday 20 Jul 2009 17:08:30 Andrew Ayre wrote:
>> I've been adding the national forests in Arizona, and the Wikipedia
>> definition doesn't fit too well. There are areas here that are inside an
>> administrative boundary called a National Forest
On Monday 20 Jul 2009 17:08:30 Andrew Ayre wrote:
> I've been adding the national forests in Arizona, and the Wikipedia
> definition doesn't fit too well. There are areas here that are inside an
> administrative boundary called a National Forest where the trees are
> very sparse - 10s of meters bet
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Tom Chance wrote:
> Surely the basic, universal need is "there are some trees here, they're
> called Sherwood Forest"? Evoke natural=wood (lakes and beaches also fall in
> between managed and unmanaged land but are marked as natural)
"Some trees here" called som
-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org]
> On Behalf Of Tom Chance
> Sent: 20 July 2009 15:43
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping
> ...
>
>
> So putting to one side arguments
[OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...
So putting to one side arguments about the inherent value of trees, British
arboreal imperialism and Xybot tricks...
Why do we care if something is a wood or a forest? Why do we care whether
or not it's managed, and whet
--- On Mon, 20/7/09, Tom Chance wrote:
> * landuse=forestry (so we know if it's managed for
> commercial reasons)
You have parks, state parks, state forests, national parks, nature conservation
areas. The list goes on and on as if someone must keep thinking up new names to
keep their job.
Th
So putting to one side arguments about the inherent value of trees, British
arboreal imperialism and Xybot tricks...
Why do we care if something is a wood or a forest? Why do we care whether
or not it's managed, and whether we all have the same sense of what
"managed" means?
Back in the good old
47 matches
Mail list logo
