There is another aspect to your question, which is how to map woods/trees after a fire?
You're right it looks like someone has mapped the wooded areas as a relation with holes for non-wooded areas https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9300964/history Some of the current gaps might be due to recent fires, and I don't know if they should be mapped as something else. Depending on the fire severity then it's possible the woodland will regrow quickly, slowly, or not for a long time. I assume there's some precedent & convention based on the large fires in the east a couple of years back. Adam On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:33, Adam Horan <aho...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think you're asking the same question as Andrew, but you possibly have > different viewpoints or opinions on it. > > I see the map as a painting that's becoming more detailed and accurate as > time progresses. In the beginning the map was blank, and people added large > areas of landcover just to get something down. Mappers took conveniences > like marking a national park as all desert or all trees. > > However now that all the basics have been done mappers are adding more > detailed, accurate information and using more sophisticated tagging schemes. > > I think it's entirely right that we map what's on the ground. If there's a > 20m gap in the trees for a road, or significant fire break, or there's been > clearing, then people should map that in detail if they have time and > inclination. > > Also the trees tend not to respect administrative boundaries, it's almost > like they don't know they're there... Tree cover extends beyond the > National Parks in a continuous run, and similarly there are clearings, > lakes, meadows, moorlands within the parks. > > However the first step in mapping this detail is to remove the blanket > landcover from the admin boundary. > > Adam > > > On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd <i...@eon4wd.com.au> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Further to Andrew Parkers question about forested areas. >> >> I am also a casual user for uploading data and I also create my own maps >> from the data. >> >> My interest is in 4wd tracks. >> >> The Grampians has had the ‘landcover – tree’ ‘areas’ changed which in my >> opinion is now not correct. >> >> See >> >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867 >> >> The Grampians is a National park and is covered in trees. >> >> There are a number of rocks and rocky outcrops (lots actually) and a few >> lakes and roads plus some swamp and rock quarries, but generally speaking >> it is completely covered in trees, everywhere, including the rocky outcrops. >> >> I suspect that some well meaning person has mapped what they could see >> via a satellite image after a fire went though. >> >> Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be >> able to find out what they are thinking? >> >> Traditionally, the whole area is mapped as tree cover and then other >> features are added on top, such as the lakes and roads. >> >> Also towards the SA border there are other treed areas that have been >> very carefully traced out. Yet traditionally the whole area is set with the >> fence lines and tracks then marked on top. >> >> Not necessarily wrong, but tracing the exact line of where the trees >> finish and the road side has been cleared, is not really helpful. Or is it? >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Ian Winter >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-au mailing list >> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >> >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
