Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
Could you provide a link to a particular location you are thinking of? When I map farms in Papua, Indonesia, usually there is a central residential compound with a few small houses and farm buildings, and usually some shade and fruit trees right between the houses. I map that residential area as landuse=residential. Sometimes there is a yard for raising chickens and pigs or a large pig stye and dirt area nearby; that can be mapped as landuse=farmyard. Then if there are vegetables gardens I map those as landuse=farmland. Any fields planted with bananas or (fruit) palms are landuse=orchard. Fallow fields are usually landuse=meadow if they are covered in grass, though after a few years they turn back into natural=scrub and eventually natural=wood - the locals use a very long rotation period. So, each area is mapped with what it is used for. This means that the different landuse areas can be pretty small. E.g.: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/-4.08508/138.73589 In the parts of Europe I've seen even smaller patches of different areas: https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/38.55129/-28.66001 That looks like a lot of work! It's totally okay to start by just mapping large areas imprecisely, and then later we can get it down to very precise mapping of thin strips of trees and scrub between fields: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/628402941 - if we want to Joseph On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:48 PM stevea wrote: > On May 28, 2020, at 5:12 PM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > > beekeeping, wild mushroom harvesting, herb-crafting for essential oils > > > > Those are all forest products, not so much farm products (though honey > can come from any type of vegetation): > > So, do I use landuse=forest or the current landuse=farmland? What I hear > is that I must choose between landuse=forest and landuse=residential. I > describe "live on family farms in the forest which are partially though not > necessarily rather forested areas which give rise to many kinds of > agricultural production, right now, today, flexibly, as we speak." They > support families in residential areas simultaneously to whatever seemingly > singular value I must compress into. They flexible support vineyards, > orchards and greenhouse_horticulture. But, sir, who are you to ask where > the edge of their residential aspect exists? I say and property owners say > (apparently, some renderer authors disagree, and that's certainly OK, I'm > merely trying to understand it) expound 'the residential semantic' over the > entire domain. Anything else, to what we might loosely agree as Americans > is a "5th amendment taking of property rights by the government." If that > sounds political, I guess that's where I say, "OK, diverges from Carto." > Again, that's OK. This is about me, Steve, understanding it. > > There is such a thing as "family owned 'farm' in the forest which does and > might give rise to forest products and has some trees where people live in > small family clusters in residential buildings." If I need to fit all that > into a single landuse tag I'd like you to tell me what it is and how it > renders. Families and agriculture and human life here on Earth is so much > more complicated than that. Thank you. > > > "Forest products include materials derived from a forest for commercial > and personal use such as lumber, paper, and firewood as well as “special > forest products” such as medicinal herbs, fungi, edible fruits and nuts, > and other natural products." > > > > So, land covered with trees which is used to produce mushrooms, > truffles, herbs, essential oils, honey, cork, bark, firewood, etc - that's > forest or woodland, not landuse=farmland. > > OK, but people live here, too. Which landuse value (with farmland out of > the way), forest or residential? I shouldn't have to choose. > > > > > Yes, the same area may be tree covered and residential at the same > time. > > Of course, there are many of these. How do we tag them? > > > > Yet, Mateusz, you don't say exactly how to tag these. > > > > You can just overlap them. Don't worry too much about how OpenStreetMap > carto renders it, as long as they way you map it makes sense and matches > reality. Perhaps we can fix the rendering if the current results are > causing confusion, so that the trees only show when the green background > shows. > > Examples of "how these are properly overlap" are appreciated. > > Changing how these layers render now would even-more-confuse. Let's stick > to how they do now. > > > > a 10 hectare / 25 acre parcel which is 98% trees and 2% house, garage, > a small clearing > > > > Yeah, I would only map the cleared area as landuse=residential in that > case, since the rest of the land is being used to grow trees, not for > residential purposes. While the current owner may not plan to cut firewood > or timber, the next owner might in another 20 or 30 years. Forestry is a > long-term thing. > > Property ownership is a "as long as it exists,
Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
It sounds like we are all on a "broad mind" of "channel what is known locally about land-use, deeply." That is many different things around the world. Let us keep a very open mind about how we characterize and categorize. These are deep and difficult topics. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:15 PM Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > You can just overlap them. Don't worry too much about how OpenStreetMap carto > renders it, as long as they way you map it makes sense and matches reality. > Perhaps we can fix the rendering if the current results are causing > confusion, so that the trees only show when the green background shows. Like Steve, I tend to overlap land use and land cover - which are two distinct things. I use 'landuse=forest' for 'the land is dedicated to the production of forest products'. Around here, such lands often, perhaps even usually, have a secondary purpose of public recreation. This is true even of privately-held ones; there are significant access easements, for instance, to the forests owned in the Adirondacks by the paper companies. I've certainly hiked on land owned by Finch Pruyn (when it was still a going concern) and International Paper. I use 'natural=wood' for 'this land is tree covered', and don't follow the convention that some mappers do that it must be in some sense a 'natural' wood, and 'unmanaged', whatever that means. (In my part of the world, the wilderness areas are among the most intensively managed land in the country - to protect them!) The strict taxonomists object to my use of 'landuse=forest' to denote the land use - and want to require trees on every square metre. But that's not the way a working forest works. In any given year, a given piece of acreage may be grassland, scrub, marsh, open water, alder thicket, or mature trees, depending on how long it's been since harvest and what the beavers have been up to that year. Despite the awkward rendering, I do not cut the water and wetlands out of a forest like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/6378266 - because the whole thing is working forest, and the beaver activity changes, so those ponds and marshes are actually less permanent than the use to which the humans put the land. 'natural=wood' may overlay atop different land uses. The grounds of the mansion at https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/148531875 are largely forested, and have a 'natural=wood' polygon overlaid, which also extends over some of the adjoining protected_areas. (The mansion grounds are not hard to trace in the field, since the NO TRESPASSING posters can be spotted from the trails on all four sides.) The industrial areas like https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/479164244 and https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7464551 are also partly wooded - largely because in this part of the world, vacant land grows to trees. On other industrial sites, the gaps between buildings may be grass, or bare dirt, or scrub land, or rubbish heaps, but here it becomes either woodland or wetland. I don't map orchards or forests as 'farmland'. I don't mind layering farm buiildings, residences, or greenhouses on top of 'farmland', and don't make cutouts for them, but the renderers are happier with me if I call orchards and forests separate things. -- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
> beekeeping, wild mushroom harvesting, herb-crafting for essential oils Those are all forest products, not so much farm products (though honey can come from any type of vegetation): "Forest products include materials derived from a forest for commercial and personal use such as lumber, paper, and firewood as well as “special forest products” such as medicinal herbs, fungi, edible fruits and nuts, and other natural products." So, land covered with trees which is used to produce mushrooms, truffles, herbs, essential oils, honey, cork, bark, firewood, etc - that's forest or woodland, not landuse=farmland. > > Yes, the same area may be tree covered and residential at the same time. > Yet, Mateusz, you don't say exactly how to tag these. You can just overlap them. Don't worry too much about how OpenStreetMap carto renders it, as long as they way you map it makes sense and matches reality. Perhaps we can fix the rendering if the current results are causing confusion, so that the trees only show when the green background shows. > a 10 hectare / 25 acre parcel which is 98% trees and 2% house, garage, a small clearing Yeah, I would only map the cleared area as landuse=residential in that case, since the rest of the land is being used to grow trees, not for residential purposes. While the current owner may not plan to cut firewood or timber, the next owner might in another 20 or 30 years. Forestry is a long-term thing. > 0% row crops, but allows (and actually develops) into orchards, vineyards, greenhouse_horticulture. It does not matter what is allowed by the local zoning laws. Don't map zoning in OpenStreetMap, map what is actually there in reality. So, if they plant a vineyard, map that as landuse=vineyard. But don't map landuse=vineyard just because it's allowed to plant a vineyard someday. – Joseph Eisenberg On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 3:51 PM stevea wrote: > Mateusz Konieczny writes: > > (quoting stevea) > "treed farmland" or "heavily wooded residential" prove slightly > problematic to OSM tagging. > > Then, Mateusz Konieczny answers: > > Map tree-covered area (landuse=forest) and map farmland > (landuse=farmland) or residential (landuse=residential). Yes, the same > area may be tree covered and residential at the same time. > > > If only it were this simple, it appears not to be. "Tree covered area" > can be either landuse=forest (OSM's wiki defines something like a > half-dozed different conventions on how we actually tag this) OR it can be > natural=wood. Very roughly stated, what _I_ do (as I see other California > and USA-based users doing this — I'm not trying to invent a new tagging > method) is to map distinctly "timber production" areas as landuse=forest > and distinctly "appears to be wooded — whether pristine and ancient > never-cut forest I don't necessarily know — as natural=wood. That is for > starters and only attempts to start from a point of "visible trees" (as in > imagery) while only leaning in the direction of landuse in the aspect of > landuse=forest being "it is well-known that this is an area which is either > actively forested, or has the right to have its trees felled" (timber > permits, owned by a logging company, CAN be cut but maybe are still growing > to maturity, MIGHT be cut but could also be deeded by owner later on to > become conservation or land trust protected area...). The possibilities > are myriad, but OSM does a "fair to good" job of characterizing these, and > with only two tags, forest and wood. This isn't perfect nor is the > consensus about how we do it, so that aspect alone complicates this > question, while at least providing SOME stability of understanding the > complex semantics. > > THEN there is the aspect of ALSO-has-a-residential-aspect (or perhaps > PRIMARILY does). Clearly, a 10 hectare / 25 acre parcel which is 98% trees > and 2% house, garage, a small clearing and a driveway for access is > something quite different than natural=wood (as far as its residential > landuse goes). However, it might not be all that different than a > landuse=forest, ESPECIALLY if the residential land owner also has a timber > permit to cut trees (possible, though not necessarily common, at least > around here). > > Regarding farmland, this has also been discussed many times, especially > about Santa Cruz County (see that topic's wiki, the fifth paragraph of the > "Work to be done in the County" section). Briefly, misunderstandings > happen because around here, we have areas which are zoned farmland, (and > are actually areas of — among other agricultural activities — beekeeping, > wild mushroom harvesting, herb-crafting for essential oils, other unusual > but certainly agricultural production) but also have significant > tree-cover, which may or may not be permitted for felling timber. That is > a whole lot of complexity to shoehorn into a couple-few simple tagging > "rules." (Or even "guidelines"). Two "admonishments" in that county-level > wiki are
Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
Mateusz Konieczny writes: > (quoting stevea) "treed farmland" or "heavily wooded residential" prove slightly problematic to OSM tagging. Then, Mateusz Konieczny answers: > Map tree-covered area (landuse=forest) and map farmland (landuse=farmland) or > residential (landuse=residential). Yes, the same area may be tree covered > and residential at the same time. If only it were this simple, it appears not to be. "Tree covered area" can be either landuse=forest (OSM's wiki defines something like a half-dozed different conventions on how we actually tag this) OR it can be natural=wood. Very roughly stated, what _I_ do (as I see other California and USA-based users doing this — I'm not trying to invent a new tagging method) is to map distinctly "timber production" areas as landuse=forest and distinctly "appears to be wooded — whether pristine and ancient never-cut forest I don't necessarily know — as natural=wood. That is for starters and only attempts to start from a point of "visible trees" (as in imagery) while only leaning in the direction of landuse in the aspect of landuse=forest being "it is well-known that this is an area which is either actively forested, or has the right to have its trees felled" (timber permits, owned by a logging company, CAN be cut but maybe are still growing to maturity, MIGHT be cut but could also be deeded by owner later on to become conservation or land trust protected area...). The possibilities are myriad, but OSM does a "fair to good" job of characterizing these, and with only two tags, forest and wood. This isn't perfect nor is the consensus about how we do it, so that aspect alone complicates this question, while at least providing SOME stability of understanding the complex semantics. THEN there is the aspect of ALSO-has-a-residential-aspect (or perhaps PRIMARILY does). Clearly, a 10 hectare / 25 acre parcel which is 98% trees and 2% house, garage, a small clearing and a driveway for access is something quite different than natural=wood (as far as its residential landuse goes). However, it might not be all that different than a landuse=forest, ESPECIALLY if the residential land owner also has a timber permit to cut trees (possible, though not necessarily common, at least around here). Regarding farmland, this has also been discussed many times, especially about Santa Cruz County (see that topic's wiki, the fifth paragraph of the "Work to be done in the County" section). Briefly, misunderstandings happen because around here, we have areas which are zoned farmland, (and are actually areas of — among other agricultural activities — beekeeping, wild mushroom harvesting, herb-crafting for essential oils, other unusual but certainly agricultural production) but also have significant tree-cover, which may or may not be permitted for felling timber. That is a whole lot of complexity to shoehorn into a couple-few simple tagging "rules." (Or even "guidelines"). Two "admonishments" in that county-level wiki are offered to prevent misunderstandings: one is that "farmland isn't simply row crops" and the second is to read the definition of what our landuse=farmland wiki says (about "tillage," for example). When both local zoning says "agricultural" and some activity like wildcrafting herbs to harvest essential oils both meet the definition of what I and others agree is "landuse=farmland," I tag these landuse=farmland. These topics are complicated. If we need more tags to better differentiate (I believe we do), let's coin them (with discussion and consensus, of course). For example, locally, we distinguish between "Commercial Agricultural" (row crops), what most people would certainly agree is classically landuse=farmland, but we also have "Residential Agricultural," or what might be termed "a live-on family farm" which includes a residence / house and significant land, a large amount of which might be "treed," with 0% row crops, but allows (and actually develops) into orchards, vineyards, greenhouse_horticulture. Indeed, I have tagged exactly those three latter tags on sub-polygons where I see them (as they are distinct tags in OSM), but in essence, it is 100% correct to tag the whole area landuse=farmland on the entire polygon (in my opinion), even though it is "also" residential. OSM does not have "landuse=live-on-family-farm" as a tag, maybe we should better develop something like this and these. > Yes, the same area may be tree covered and residential at the same time. Yet, Mateusz, you don't say exactly how to tag these. And (multi)polygons which describe them ARE (I know it, Doug knows it, many know it) and can be exceedingly complex structures to "get them right." > Yes, "tree-covered area" meaning for landuse=forest mismatches strict meaning > of both landuse and forest If only it were this simple, it appears not to be. Again, I would go back to the (local? regional?) distinctions I make
[Talk-us] Whole-US Garmin Map update - 2020-05-26
These are based off of Lambertus's work here: http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl If you have questions or comments about these maps, please feel free to ask. However, please do not send me private mail. The odds are, someone else will have the same questions, and by asking on the talk-us@ list, others can benefit. Downloads: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2020-05-26 Map to visualize what each file contains: http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2020-05-26/kml/kml.html FAQ Why did you do this? I wrote scripts to joined them myself to lessen the impact of doing a large join on Lambertus's server. I've also cut them in large longitude swaths that should fit conveniently on removable media. http://daveh.dev.openstreetmap.org/garmin/Lambertus/2020-05-26 Can or should I seed the torrents? Yes!! If you use the .torrent files, please seed. That web server is in the UK, and it helps to have some peers on this side of the Atlantic. Why is my map missing small rectangular areas? There have been some missing tiles from Lambertus's map (the red rectangles), I don't see any at the moment, so you may want to update if you had issues with the last set. Why can I not copy the large files to my new SD card? If you buy a new card (especially SDHC), some are FAT16 from the factory. I had to reformat it to let me create a >2GB file. Does your map cover Mexico/Canada? Yes!! I have, for the purposes of this map, annexed Ontario in to the USA. Some areas of North America that are close to the US also just happen to get pulled in to these maps. This might not happen forever, and if you would like your non-US area to get included, let me know. -- Dave ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
May 28, 2020, 23:54 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > "treed farmland" or "heavily wooded residential" prove slightly problematic > to OSM tagging. > Map tree-covered area (landuse=forest) and map farmland (landuse=farmland) or residential (landuse=residential). Yes, the same area may be tree covered and residential at the same time. Yes, "tree-covered area" meaning for landuse=forest mismatches strict meanning of bot landuse and forest. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
[Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
Fellow OSMer doug_sfba maps natural=wood edges around the southern and western areas of Silicon Valley (the South Bay Area in California), among other mapping and places. I map similar things a bit further south, with initial emphasis on landuse, but as I sometimes combined natural tags in the same polygon, I now tend — as "more correct" — towards breaking these into two polygons, this is a fair bit of work. Doug and I have collaborated a lot, and agree (among other things) that in OSM, there is a distinction between landUSE and landCOVER. For example, "treed farmland" or "heavily wooded residential" prove slightly problematic to OSM tagging. Due to complex tagging schemes on complex (multi)polygon construction (sometimes half-jokingly referred to as "higher math," though it is more like discrete math, topology and possibly its concept of "genus" or "holes in a complex surface") this can result in quite different results in the Carto renderer. Recently, Doug and I discussed that Carto, areas of "heavily wooded residential" render with three possibilities, depending on some complex tagging strategies and the sizes of the underlying (multi)polygons: • "fully gray," indicating pure residential, but leaving the human viewing Carto no indication the area is heavily wooded, • "fully green-with-trees" (as natural=wood), which excludes the important aspect that while wooded, this is residential, or • "gray with superimposed trees" (in both our opinions, a superior and pleasing method to display "heavily wooded residential"). For an example of the latter, see https://www.osm.org/query?lat=37.3769=-122.2506#map=15/37.3873/-122.2526 and notice the residential areas surrounding Thornewood Open Space Preserve. As I mentioned to Doug I exchanged a couple of emails with user:jeisenberg (a principal contributor to Carto) about what was going on with some examples of this, and Mr. Eisenberg explained to me (in short) that it is a complicated ordering (or re-ordering) of layers issue, both Doug and I continue to scratch our heads about what "best practice" might be here. (For "heavily wooded residential" polygons, which are frequent in Northern California). While Doug and I both tend towards the preference of the "superimposed look," it is not always simple to achieve, due to complexities in the renderer and data/tagging dependencies. And, Doug and I are certainly aware of "don't code for the renderer." However, given that Doug and I are fairly certain that others have noticed this, but aren't certain that others know what best to do (we don't, either), we ask the wider community "what do you think?" and "What are best practices here?" Yes, the questions are a bit fuzzy and it is difficult to describe what is going on in the renderer (ordering or re-ordering of layers depending on size, I believe), but it does seem like we might be able to agree upon a best practice of "what to do." In short, Doug and I both strive to "tag accurately," but just as "9" can be 5+4 or 6+3, there are many methods to combine and build polygons to describe an area and tag them accurately, though many combinations render differently. This is being sent to both talk-us and the tagging list, where I think the latter may be a better place, but this was noticed by a couple of California mappers (for some time), so including talk-us might help widen the audience to include others who have noticed these anomalies. Thank you in advance for good discussion. SteveA California ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
