adding top-level categories to the landcover value is maybe the best idea, it allow incremential mapping : - you 'll add true value depending of your "level" and the quality of the source - another day another mapper may improve it.
Le 14.03.19 à 22:33, Lorenzo Stucchi a écrit : > Hi all, > > sorry I change the idea from just landcover to sat_landcover because I > saw it as reasonable for a draft landcover in an area for which I don’t > know exactly if what I’m mapping is a meadow or a cultivated land or > something similar, but I understand in which of the categories it fall, > as we explain into the wiki page. > > So if you think that it's better to return back to just landcover for me > it’s fine. > > We just want to point the problem and the importance of a theme like > deforestation in a big forest and his effect on climate change. But if > there are no data about how is possible to do that? > > So from this reason, we have this proposal after reading pages of the > wiki trying to find the best solution to tag these elements. We don’t > want to create anything that can be forgotten after our event instead, > we think that this can be an important issue that can be taken care of > part of OSM community. > > Any help is welcome and please try to remain focus on the starting point > and not diverge like in the previous thread. Sorry we care very much on > this project and we believe in the his importance. > > Thanks Tod for this point this is what we are exactly talking about. > > Best, > Lorenzo > >> Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 22:29, Tod Fitch <t...@fitchdesign.com >> <mailto:t...@fitchdesign.com>> ha scritto: >> >>> >>> On Mar 14, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com >>> <mailto:marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>> wrote: >>>> no:landcover=trees ? >>>> or, as the previous landcover/imagery show tress, was:landcover=trees >>> >>> However you want to spell it. >>> >>> I just saw two replies to Lorenzo that were suggesting that his source >>> data were unmappable because they didn't support a sufficiently >>> detailed taxonomy of landcover, and I wanted to point out that "no >>> trees here" is useful information that should be distinguished from >>> "we haven't yet looked to see if there are trees here." >>> >>> "was:landcover=trees" is not something that I favour, because there's >>> also the useful combination, "no trees in the old imagery, and no >>> trees in the current imagery either", still without information about >>> whether one is looking at grass, scrub, heath, meadow, wetland or >>> farmland, which can't always be distinguished in orthoimages. I >>> suppose that the "no:landcover=trees" COULD work, but I don't see >>> no:*=* in wide use, and suspect that it will be controversial. >>> >> >> Why not landcover=vegetation as an equivalent to highway=road? It >> would indicate that some type of plant matter is growing on it but >> exactly what is not yet known. Once more information (field survey? >> low level aerial survey/photos?) is available then a more specific >> landcover could be applied. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging