Hi, thanks for your very interesting point, this can be a good point to thinks to pass to the tag landcover to sat_landcover to better distinguish the different vision. And sat_landcover can be a first draft info just for isolated land where is hard to go and check what is mapped and after this info can be implemented
For the changes in time it depends on the availability of the satellite imagery. About this I found some old wiki page with some tools for understand the time of the Bing imagery, but they doesn’t works anymore. Best, Lorenzo Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 09:48, Peter Elderson <pelder...@gmail.com<mailto:pelder...@gmail.com>> ha scritto: I think your idea is good, but the scale and viewpoint are different from the regular mapping perspective. OSM-mappers map "What's on the ground" as seen from the ground, as detailed as possible. Satellite imagery is only used to estimate and confiirm. Wjhat one doesn't know, is left open. Where there is no landcover, no landcover is mapped. Your idea appears to colour Earth surface in large area's, according to predominant cover as seen from satellite. Nothing would remain empty: if there is nothing covering the earth, that's what you tag. I see no way to unite these perspectives in the current landcover, landuse and natural tagging. I think you would need a separate special tag for this. E.g. sat_landcover=* defined specially for this purpose. Then you can define "barren" as a satellite landcover, and you can set up a quality assurance system based on systematic review according to satellite imagery. Of course, other datausers will be able to use the data for rendering if they see fit. Since it's about changes in the course of time, how do you plan to record and display the changes? Yearly datasets? Fr gr Peter Elderson Op do 14 mrt. 2019 om 08:41 schreef Lorenzo Stucchi <lorenzostucch...@outlook.it<mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>>: Hi, Thanks for your reply. Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 00:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com<mailto:61sundow...@gmail.com>> ha scritto: A good guide is to only map what you know, if you don't know - leave the map blank. Colouring in the map may look pretty, but it may hide errors that would be best left for others to find having been altered to the area by the blank area. I think that with the propose of mapping deforestation if we add data in this area were the data aren’t present we don’t just coloured the map but we can create a good database, from which is possible to analyse the evolution of the forest area and have the possibility to study better some aspect of climate change. landcover<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landcover>=barren<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landcover%3Dbarren&action=edit&redlink=1>. NO! This fails to map what is there. Map the surrounding area with what you can see and leave a hole in it, use a relation to do it of the type=multipolygon. I’m not agree because If we leave a empty area this can be everything that doesn’t have a tag, for example grass land where we are not sure if its grass or meadow, that its hard to distinguish it from the satellite. landcover<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landcover>=artificial<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landcover%3Dartificial&action=edit&redlink=1> Don't think so. Too general. And the text links it to are 3 land uses, these are not land covers. I’m agree with you that this can be to general, exactly there are 3 different tag to tag the area if better quality imagery are available and is possible to distinguish between them. landcover<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landcover>=cultivated<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landcover%3Dcultivated&action=edit&redlink=1>. This is not a land cover, it is a land use. And OSM presently prefers a more detailed value. I thinks that this is landcover, also for the reason explained in the introduction and considering the previous scientific studies. landcover<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landcover>=trees<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dtrees> This at least works .. it is a land cover and it does have trees. Unfortunately it does not render on many maps, so you might also tag it natural=wood. Depends what we think that is more interesting the info in the database or the rendering of the map. Thanks for your reply. Best, Lorenzo Stucchi On 14/03/19 06:49, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote: Hi all, After some discussion about the idea of this project, we think to better capt all the idea to create a wiki page with the purpose of better understand the problem and find the better way to tag this situation. So we create a wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/PoliMappers/mapping_deforestation where is possible to discuss these thematics, let us known your idea. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
