On 09/08/18 08:47, marc marc wrote:
+1
the current proposal of the page seems to me to be a good promise to
improve the current situation while remaining realistic with the fact
that some mapper do not always have all the information or all the
knowledge to make the perfect solution.
in this sense the page is well enough to push good practices forward
while giving a scheme for imperfect v1 but allowing to have useful
information for future improvement (I can easily imagine a
StreetComplete quest that would ask a local contributor what
exactly the hole in the forest consists of)
the page only need to be moved to /Proposed_features/ :)
Opps!! Thanks. I have copied it... and placed warning on the top of the
original page with a link.
New copied page is at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover%3Dclearing
I am yet to contact the original HOT task for the area that I have covered as
trees (with holes).
{Too many things to do ! :)}
It looks now to be visible
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/528264806#map=13/8.4987/-83.4343
Zooming out and the 'clearings' disappear but you can then see the extent of
the trees - at least as far as I have gone.
Zoom in and you can see more detail of the 'clearings'.
Le 09. 08. 18 à 00:27, Warin a écrit :
There are some who would then say that a 'clearing' that is made by man
should not be in the key 'natural' but in the key 'man_made'.
A 'clearing' may not have ever had the surrounding vegetation - an area
of rock for example.
The 'clearing' is about a change in the land cover, not about an
absence, an absence would be 'space' - a vacuum ...there will be
something there, but arm chair mappers may not be able to identify
either the surrounding vegetation nor the areas vegetation.
On 09/08/18 02:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
what about natural=clearing? I don’t see “clearing” as a landcover
value that suits. Landcover is about what is there physically,
“clearing” is about the absence of what was there before.
Cheers,
Martin
sent from a phone
On 6. Aug 2018, at 02:11, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,
I have been looking at the values used with the landuse key to try
and stop land covers becoming regarded as a legitimate use of the key
landuse.
One strange value I came across was 'clearing'. No OSM wiki document.
I resolved this to mean a change in land cover usually from trees to
a 'clear' area.
Most of these look to be from HOT mapping.
Other instances of the value 'clearing' are natural=clearing
andwood=clearing.
So I am thinking that these would best combined into the one tag
landcover=clearing
A proposal page is ready for comments - link -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover%3Dclearing
The basics are :
Definition: An area where surrounding larger vegetation, such as
trees, are not present. This provides more light than the surrounding
area. It may have lower vegetation growing, or it may be an outcrop
of rock.
Rationale:
Defines use of already existing value and suggest better ways of
mapping these features. It is meant to encourage better mapping and
suggest that this tag is a last resort.
Key
The key landcover is use as the 'best fit' as it marks the lack of a
surrounding land cover, so it is directly related to a land cover.
The area could all ready have a land use - part of a forestry area
for example. The area could have been made by man or nature so
neither of the keys natural or man_made would suit all situations.
How to map
The section on 'how to map' gives 4 options of how to map a clearing;
map what is there, map what is surrounding, map both what is there
and surrounding or map with landcover=clearing.
Asking a mapper not to map this feature is not a good idea, mappers
should be encouraged to map not discouraged. If a mapper has found
this tag page then it is best to document better ways to tag the
feature with this tag being the lest desirable result that maps the
information rather than not mapping the information.
The listed order is a compromise. The better mapping ones come before
landcover=clearing to discourage it use. The simplest option first -
map what is there - as that is the easiest option. If they cannot
determine what is there then the next option - map the surrounds.
Then the combination of the first two. Then finally the last option
and least desirable. Hopefully this causes some though on what they
are mapping, rather than just using the tag.
__________________
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
