The problem I see in map native forest:
- old satellite imagery and deforestation... Maybe the people will spend
time mapping an outdated information.
- it can be difficult to distinguish a native forest from a managed
forest.
- the forests are huge, so it takes a lot of time.
I would prefer to have more areas with rivers and roads mapped than to
have too much information in a few areas. I would like to include
mapping landuse=residential or isolated buildings, so we can have an
idea about where there is people living in Amazonia.
cheers,
wille
Em 2015-01-08 14:12, Vitor George escreveu:
Hi everybody,
I want to propose minimum requirements to consider an area mapped in
Mapazonia. Some contributors are mapping native forest, like in here:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-14.6257/-54.2441 [1]
It looks great on the map. At first I tought it would be better to map
only rivers and leave landuse to a second phase. But why not map
native forest right now? It is information as much as valuable as
rivers', if not more. So my propose to consider a area mapped is:
- all waterways mapped (river middle lines);
- all riverbanks mapped (not for thinner streams);
- all native forest mapped (but not deforestated areas as they are
harder to classify);
- all rural roads (using highway=track?);
What do you think?
Abraços,
Vitor
Links:
------
[1] http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/-14.6257/-54.2441
_______________________________________________
talk-latam mailing list
talk-latam@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-latam
--
wille
http://wille.blog.br
_______________________________________________
talk-latam mailing list
talk-latam@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-latam
