On 4/8/20 7:17 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Everyone, the voting period for natural=bare_ground is still open for
4 more days.
I would recommend voting "no" on the current definition, unfortunately.
As mentioned above, the current definition is far too broad, and could
easily be construed to include areas under construction, areas of bare
soil due to use by people as a pathway or road area,
These are 'land use' not 'land cover' and can be tagged separately. They
are orthogonal.
and many sorts of arid and semi-natural areas, including those that
are partially covered by shrubs, heath, grass or other sparse vegetation,
The question is, what is dominate? An area of trees that is mostly trees
should be tagged as trees, if it is mostly bear earth then tagged as
bare earth...
OSM already has areas of combined trees and shrubs where the general
guide used is tag what is dominate. No need to single this proposal with
partial coverings as it applies to all of the present OSM tagging.
or even areas of farmland that are currently fallow.
Again a land use not a land cover.
Please see the discussion and objections on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground
I think it is a good idea to have a way to tag bare soil which is not
sand (natural=sand) or mostly stones (natural=shingle/scree) or mud,
but we need a clear, limited definition which does not fit with
human-use areas like roads, dirt parking lots, construction sites,
abandoned quarries etc, and there needs to be more consideration about
when the tag should be used instead of natural=heath and natural=scrub
in arid regions where there are scattered bushes.
For the proposal author, I would suggest mapping some local features
in your area which would fit the proposed definition, and then come
back with photos plus aerial imagery of the areas which ought to be
mapped with this tag. So far it has been mostly hypothetical, which
makes it hard to understand which sorts of landscapes would qualify
for this tag.
I think this is similar to the tags surface=earth and surface=dirt, both
are poorly defined.
Perhaps these 2 tags would be better as surface=soil???
The proposal sates "An area covered by soil" so it should be natural=soil.
The description could then be "The upper layer of the planet earth being
a material typically consisting of a mixture of organic remains, clay,
and rock particles." ???
Of course the usual exclusions apply;
majority is soil
where a more detailed value applies, use it eg natural=clay if the
majority of the area is covered by clay.
- Joseph Eisenberg
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:58 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdre...@gmail.com <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
sent from a phone
> On 27. Jul 2020, at 13:41, Michael Montani
<michael.mont...@un.org <mailto:michael.mont...@un.org>> wrote:
>
> I eventually found on-the-ground images of the feature I would
like to propose / map.
are these suggested to be represented as polygons? How would the
border be determined? I looks from the imagery as if there is a
smooth transition of these „features“ and neighbouring land which
isn’t completely bare. Did you try to map some of these and if
yes, could you please post a link to an area where a few are mapped?
Transitions from, say, trees to shrubs also occur. The guide is to map
what is dominate, when domination changes is where the 'border' is. OSM
does not have tagging for mixed areas, if you want it .. propose it?
Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
