Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
stevea writes: > We agree. The issues are both around the different behavior of the > (Carto) renderer when both landuse=residential and natural=wood are > combined (and there are highly complex ways they can be and are > "combined" in the OSM database), and around how mappers understand > these data should be entered. Should both natural=wood and > landuse=residential be "stacked" as two tags on one (multi)polygon? I would say probably not, as it is highly unlikely, really entirely unlikely, that an extent of landuse=residential, determined by aggregation of property with similar use, lines up exactly with an area that is covered by trees. > That was and is widely done in cases where heavily-wooded residential > polygons exist, though a "better" trend (at least around here) is to > break these apart into two polygons: one explicitly on the > landuse=residential polygon (glom of parcels which are residential, to > the area extent where they are), one on the polygon defining the > extent of natural=wood. Yes, this is sensible. Two areas, entirely disconnected spatially, each defining the area where their property applies. > Unfortunately, Carto doesn't easily (it does consistently, but the > rules are complex, having to do with sizes of the underlying polygons) > render these consistently, requiring frequent "fiddling" by craft > mappers who are looking for both a desired effect and a visual > semiotic which richly and accurately conveys what is going on: heavily > wooded residential landuse. THat's what I meant by suboptimal, which was a polite word: If there is semantic markup of "this area is residential landuse" and "this other area is covered by trees", then the rendering rules should do the same thing regardless of the precise form of the relation/polygon/etc. It is a bug if anyone needs to walk on eggshells to make it come out right. I don't mean in any sense to say "the people that do Carto are bad people". This seems incredibly hard to get right and I don't know how to fix it. I just mean that it is a failure of software to be ideal and a place for improvement, in a descriptive and non-judgemental way. >> The basic problem here is that it's pretty straightforward to render a >> map that primarily shows landuse, and it's pretty straightforward to >> render a map tha primarily shows landcover. What carto does, and what a >> lot of people want, is a way to show both of them. > > I wouldn't necessarily call it a "basic problem," more like the desire > of "let Carto display both" doing so in complex ways, which gives rise > to "well, what are the best practices here?" I think we agree; I'm saying that designing rendering rules that show land use and land cover at the same time is 1) hard and 2) beyond what is typical in cartography. In other words, the "what are best practices" question you pose don't have an easy, consistent answer. >> I would suggest that if tagging heroics are needed there is something >> suboptimal in the renderer. I think renderers probably need fancier >> code to choose which of landuse/landcover to emphasisize depending on >> local scale. Or a deconfliction of symbology. > > Yes, heroics are sometimes employed, yet even that isn't always enough > (it is often, but not always). "Suboptimal" might be too damning, as > I don't think it is "deficiencies" in the renderer, rather I think > there are "projected expectations" of the renderer (that it appears > Carto CAN render "both," so it SHOULD, and it DOES, but in > sometimes-confusing ways). I don't know if you are just trying harder than me to be nice, or if we really see this differently. I see a rendering plan like a specification, something like "an area that is both landuse=residential and natural=wood should have a 40% gray fill with a stipple of tree icons at 20% green" (making that up, details not the point). Then, areas that are covered by each should be like that. And the exact form of tagging should not matter, and people should not feel motivated to mess around with tagging form to make the renderer work. Otherwise, it's a bug to be fixed. Again, this is hard and I get it that people with limited time are working on it. > This is an example of amazing, sometimes > beautiful things going on in the renderer "driving" whether and how > OSM should and does enter data. Yes, there is some "coding (data and > tagging) for the renderer" going on, but it appears to be in the best > longer-term interests of good data entering, not simply and only for > the same of "pretty renderings." I believe we can get there, an > attempt to discuss "best practices" (I'll settle for "better > practices" for now!) is a step in that direction. As always, there is the question of whether people are really coding tagging for renderer behavior that is not justified, or whether there is a sensible semantics in between taggers and interpreters. I feel like you have arrived at having to walk on eggshells to make it
Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
Jun 3, 2020, 06:09 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > Mateusz Konieczny writes: > "OSM is not a place to map property rights. And landuse=residential is > certainly not a tool for mapping boundaries of owned areas or property right > boundaries." > > I don't wish to start an argument, and I ask with all the politeness I can > muster, but Mateusz, how can you be so sure? Quoting our wiki, "land > use...describes what an area of land is used for e.g. housing..., etc." On > the land that property owners own, and live on, can you truly say they are > not "using the entirety of their land for residential purposes?" Of course, > some of that might have a house or apartment building, but the rest of it, is > that land not also residential? > Depends on a case. If you have a tree-covered area next to house, then it is likely a landuse=residential and it likely terminates where your owned area terminates. But if you have 2000 acres of forest, wetland and whatever else - with your house there, it does not mean that the entire area becomes landuse=residential. I agree that landuse=residential often matches property area (as people typically use their entire property). But I would strongly against matching residential areas to property boundaries. And I am strongly opposed to basing OSM mapping on people who think that landuse=residential mapped in OSM defines their owned property and affects their legal rights. > "the remainder of land which is used for residential purposes which does > not strictly contain the footprint of a building (hut, apartment, tent, > hogan, mud daub dwelling)?" Something other than residential? It is > residential! > Yes, this is residential. But I have seen cases (and though that you are talking about it) of people tagging private forest/wetland/whatever as landuse=residential till their property boundary For example things like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lush_undergrowth_Bj%C3%B6rnlandet_national_park.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lawthorn_wetland,_Irvine,_North_Ayrshire.jpg were marked as landuse=residential solely because were on the same legal area as a house, despite not used for residential purpose in any way (except some sightseeing/walking, like it happens with any other forest). For example, area should not be marked as landuse=industrial just because someone has legal rights to drill for oil there or legal rights to build factory there. It also is not landuse=industrial if it is forest next to currently operating factory, with a planned construction there. Only once a construction starts it can be marked as a landuse=construction and later once the factory is actually there it will be a landuse=industrial ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
Mateusz Konieczny writes: "OSM is not a place to map property rights. And landuse=residential is certainly not a tool for mapping boundaries of owned areas or property right boundaries." I don't wish to start an argument, and I ask with all the politeness I can muster, but Mateusz, how can you be so sure? Quoting our wiki, "land use...describes what an area of land is used for e.g. housing..., etc." On the land that property owners own, and live on, can you truly say they are not "using the entirety of their land for residential purposes?" Of course, some of that might have a house or apartment building, but the rest of it, is that land not also residential? I believe it is. I am not alone. You might be conflating these areas with the "property rights" of the owners/residents, as I did bring that phrase into the conversation. But what else would we call "the remainder of land which is used for residential purposes which does not strictly contain the footprint of a building (hut, apartment, tent, hogan, mud daub dwelling)?" Something other than residential? It is residential! SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > "this IS residential landuse." (Not COULD BE, but IS). Yes, this land might > be "natural" now, including being "treed," but I could still build a patio > and bbq there after perhaps cutting down some trees, it is my residential > land and I am allowed to do that, meaning it has residential use, even if it > is "unimproved" presently. > It is a residential property, not a residential landuse. > These facts do add to the difficulty: OSM doesn't wish to appear to be > removing property rights from residential landowners (by diminishing > landuse=residential areas) > Are there people somehow believing that edits in OSM affect property rights and may remove them? That is ridiculous. > but at the same time, significant portions of these areas do remain in a > natural state, while distinctly and presently "having" residential landuse. > For me and in my region (Poland) it would be treated as a clearly incorrect mapping. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
Jun 2, 2020, 22:32 by stevea...@softworkers.com: > On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:25 PM, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > >> > should the entirety of the underlying area be tagged landuse=farmland or >> > landuse=residential? >> >> Neither: just tag the areas that are used for residences as >> landuse=residential, and the area used for farming (mostly crops) as >> landuse=farmland. >> > > I can certainly appreciate how this is an easy suggestion from the author of > a renderer, but it diminishes from our map the extent of property rights of > the owner of the residence / farmland. > OSM is not a place to map property rights. And landuse=residential is certainly not a tool for mapping boundaries of owned areas or property right boundaries. > In OpenStreetMap we want to map what is actually there, not the zoning or > legal landuse or property boundaries. > > What is actually there are property rights, which is what I take as the > meaning of "landuse=residential." > landuse=residential is an area of land dedicated to, or having predominantly residential buildings such as houses or apartment buildings. In many cases (properties for solely residential use) it coincides with areas owned by people owning a house. But it is not always true, if you have a property with forest/farmland - then part of your property will be landuse=residential and part of it will be landuse=farmland (or =forest or =industrial or =construction or something else in other cases). In some cases, especially with tree-covered areas part of area may be covered by two such areas. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
On Jun 2, 2020, at 1:25 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > > should the entirety of the underlying area be tagged landuse=farmland or > > landuse=residential? > > Neither: just tag the areas that are used for residences as > landuse=residential, and the area used for farming (mostly crops) as > landuse=farmland. I can certainly appreciate how this is an easy suggestion from the author of a renderer, but it diminishes from our map the extent of property rights of the owner of the residence / farmland. I don't want to do that, I don't believe others want to, either. > In OpenStreetMap we want to map what is actually there, not the zoning or > legal landuse or property boundaries. What is actually there are property rights, which is what I take as the meaning of "landuse=residential." If you saying I don't have "landuse=residential" on property I own which I simply (but AM) using to "enjoy the trees from my backyard deck," I'd say you are diminishing from our map (and by extension, a representation of property owners' actual land use) actual landuse. Why would you suggest we do that? Property rights can't be seen from satellite imagery, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. > This might change next year, just like an unmown meadow may change back into > scrubland, and then eventually into woodland, or how a river will meander > over time. No, people own land for many years or decades, with property lines seldom changing anywhere near as radically as Mother Nature. > Map what is there in reality right now, to your best ability. If people want > to know the legal zoning or property boundaries there are plenty of data > sources for that information, but OpenStreetMap is valueable because it > provides local knowledge of what is really there. The "land, as it is being used, residentially" (denoted in OSM as landuse=residential) is really there, so I do. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
> should the entirety of the underlying area be tagged landuse=farmland or landuse=residential? Neither: just tag the areas that are used for residences as landuse=residential, and the area used for farming (mostly crops) as landuse=farmland. In OpenStreetMap we want to map what is actually there, not the zoning or legal landuse or property boundaries. This might change next year, just like an unmown meadow may change back into scrubland, and then eventually into woodland, or how a river will meander over time. Map what is there in reality right now, to your best ability. If people want to know the legal zoning or property boundaries there are plenty of data sources for that information, but OpenStreetMap is valueable because it provides local knowledge of what is really there. –Joseph Eisenberg On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 1:19 PM stevea wrote: > Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > I think that it is not a good assumption. One may have a property > boundary that is partially landuse=residential and partially > landuse=industrial/farmland > > I have mentioned before that the values OSM documents for the landuse key, > while good, are incomplete with the great richness by which the world > recognizes and categorizes these. Here, Mateusz mentions a "triple" where > residential, industrial and farmland exist together (or perhaps "double" > where the latter two are blended, a certain kind of "single" activity, so > when the residence is added, this makes two distinct landuses in total). > > I myself have mentioned what are locally known as "residential / > agricultural" areas, which I characterize as a "live on family farm." > These consist of a residence (house) and small (one to ten hectares) or > medium-to-large (ten hectares and larger) areas where a wide variety of > agriculture either can or might take place. Some areas are substantially > tree-covered and give rise to wild mushroom gathering, what I am told is a > "fruits of the forest" activity, not "farmland." On these (especially in > clearings, grassland/meadow areas), I often find > landuse=greenhouse_horticulture, landuse=orchard and landuse=vineyard areas > which "crop up" and appear in imagery. Because OSM has specific tags for > these, I tag them as I see them. However, should the entirety of the > underlying area be tagged landuse=farmland or landuse=residential? The > truth is, "they are both," but OSM hasn't a > landuse=live_on_family_farm_that_gives_rise_to_tree-planting_viticulture_and_hothouses > tag. > > Getting the entirety of the world to agree upon values which seem very > highly locally-dependent and articulated seems difficult. The alternative > is to have our renderers only approximate the tagging mappers are > encouraged to "shoehorn" into, given these many, often subtle, landuse > distinctions. > > Another complicating factor is "actual landuse" vs. "potential landuse," > (does take place vs. can or might take place) where some say to "tag only > what is actual." Others see this approach as a removal of land rights, > further muddying what OSM means by landuse. > > These issues truly are complicated, I believe it is easy to agree. > > SteveA > ___ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us > ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I think that it is not a good assumption. One may have a property boundary > that is partially landuse=residential and partially > landuse=industrial/farmland I have mentioned before that the values OSM documents for the landuse key, while good, are incomplete with the great richness by which the world recognizes and categorizes these. Here, Mateusz mentions a "triple" where residential, industrial and farmland exist together (or perhaps "double" where the latter two are blended, a certain kind of "single" activity, so when the residence is added, this makes two distinct landuses in total). I myself have mentioned what are locally known as "residential / agricultural" areas, which I characterize as a "live on family farm." These consist of a residence (house) and small (one to ten hectares) or medium-to-large (ten hectares and larger) areas where a wide variety of agriculture either can or might take place. Some areas are substantially tree-covered and give rise to wild mushroom gathering, what I am told is a "fruits of the forest" activity, not "farmland." On these (especially in clearings, grassland/meadow areas), I often find landuse=greenhouse_horticulture, landuse=orchard and landuse=vineyard areas which "crop up" and appear in imagery. Because OSM has specific tags for these, I tag them as I see them. However, should the entirety of the underlying area be tagged landuse=farmland or landuse=residential? The truth is, "they are both," but OSM hasn't a landuse=live_on_family_farm_that_gives_rise_to_tree-planting_viticulture_and_hothouses tag. Getting the entirety of the world to agree upon values which seem very highly locally-dependent and articulated seems difficult. The alternative is to have our renderers only approximate the tagging mappers are encouraged to "shoehorn" into, given these many, often subtle, landuse distinctions. Another complicating factor is "actual landuse" vs. "potential landuse," (does take place vs. can or might take place) where some say to "tag only what is actual." Others see this approach as a removal of land rights, further muddying what OSM means by landuse. These issues truly are complicated, I believe it is easy to agree. SteveA ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
On Jun 2, 2020, at 4:11 AM, Greg Troxel wrote: > stevea writes: >> ...we ask the wider community "what do you think?" and "What are best >> practices here?" > > Agreed this is really hard. I'm heartened to hear others share not necessarily only frustration, but even some difficulty in articulating the issues! > First, I'm going to assume that polygons for landuse=residential do or > are intended to align with property boundaries. I'm also going to > assume that natural=wood aligns with the actual location of trees, which > is (in mass) almost always not aligned with property boundaries. I have > thought it an error to have natural=wood tagged on a polygon that shows > conservation land, as the adjacent non-conservation land almost always > similarly has trees (around me). Yes, I speak locally (in my county, based on the landuse polygons that have been entered into OSM for over a decade), the (multi)polygons tagged landuse=residential are aligned with property boundaries of residential parcels, agglomerated into a single datum (the polygon), not individual parcels. In my very strong opinion (and others in OSM have told me they agree), OSM absolutely wants these polygons, as they define "this IS residential landuse." (Not COULD BE, but IS). Yes, this land might be "natural" now, including being "treed," but I could still build a patio and bbq there after perhaps cutting down some trees, it is my residential land and I am allowed to do that, meaning it has residential use, even if it is "unimproved" presently. These facts do add to the difficulty: OSM doesn't wish to appear to be removing property rights from residential landowners (by diminishing landuse=residential areas), but at the same time, significant portions of these areas do remain in a natural state, while distinctly and presently "having" residential landuse. For example, I can visually enjoy my trees and creek from my backyard deck, even as they remain natural, this IS (not COULD BE) a residential landuse. (An important one I don't believe OSM wants to remove from the map data). > I would suggest that perhaps a "this land has some trees" landcover tag > (cover != use, strongly agreed) may make sense. I am not sure you are > talking about this, or not. I find natural=wood to imply that the land > has none to very little built structures, mostly trees, and the usual > understory plants. I would definitely not want to use this tag on an > landuse=residential area with houses, but I might use it on the rear > parts of a housing area that are basically trees. I also would not > want to stop at the subdivision line. We agree. The issues are both around the different behavior of the (Carto) renderer when both landuse=residential and natural=wood are combined (and there are highly complex ways they can be and are "combined" in the OSM database), and around how mappers understand these data should be entered. Should both natural=wood and landuse=residential be "stacked" as two tags on one (multi)polygon? That was and is widely done in cases where heavily-wooded residential polygons exist, though a "better" trend (at least around here) is to break these apart into two polygons: one explicitly on the landuse=residential polygon (glom of parcels which are residential, to the area extent where they are), one on the polygon defining the extent of natural=wood. This has the added benefit of allowing much finer detail on where the actual wooded extents are, as making these distinctions are important to the map as well as to many mappers. Unfortunately, Carto doesn't easily (it does consistently, but the rules are complex, having to do with sizes of the underlying polygons) render these consistently, requiring frequent "fiddling" by craft mappers who are looking for both a desired effect and a visual semiotic which richly and accurately conveys what is going on: heavily wooded residential landuse. > The basic problem here is that it's pretty straightforward to render a > map that primarily shows landuse, and it's pretty straightforward to > render a map tha primarily shows landcover. What carto does, and what a > lot of people want, is a way to show both of them. I wouldn't necessarily call it a "basic problem," more like the desire of "let Carto display both" doing so in complex ways, which gives rise to "well, what are the best practices here?" > I would suggest that if tagging heroics are needed there is something > suboptimal in the renderer. I think renderers probably need fancier > code to choose which of landuse/landcover to emphasisize depending on > local scale. Or a deconfliction of symbology. Yes, heroics are sometimes employed, yet even that isn't always enough (it is often, but not always). "Suboptimal" might be too damning, as I don't think it is "deficiencies" in the renderer, rather I think there are "projected expectations" of the renderer (that it appears Carto CAN
Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
Jun 2, 2020, 13:11 by g...@lexort.com: > First, I'm going to assume that polygons for landuse=residential do or > are intended to align with property boundaries. > I think that it is not a good assumption. One may have a property boundary that is partially landuse=residential and partially landuse=industrial/farmland ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Heavily-wooded residential polygons
stevea writes: > 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?" Agreed this is really hard. First, I'm going to assume that polygons for landuse=residential do or are intended to align with property boundaries. I'm also going to assume that natural=wood aligns with the actual location of trees, which is (in mass) almost always not aligned with property boundaries. I have thought it an error to have natural=wood tagged on a polygon that shows conservation land, as the adjacent non-conservation land almost always similarly has trees (around me). I would suggest that perhaps a "this land has some trees" landcover tag (cover != use, strongly agreed) may make sense. I am not sure you are talking about this, or not. I find natural=wood to imply that the land has none to very little built structures, mostly trees, and the usual understory plants. I would definitely not want to use this tag on an landuse=residential area with houses, but I might use it on the rear parts of a housing area that are basically trees. I also would not want to stop at the subdivision line. The basic problem here is that it's pretty straightforward to render a map that primarily shows landuse, and it's pretty straightforward to render a map tha primarily shows landcover. What carto does, and what a lot of people want, is a way to show both of them. I would suggest that if tagging heroics are needed there is something suboptimal in the renderer. I think renderers probably need fancier code to choose which of landuse/landcover to emphasisize depending on local scale. Or a deconfliction of symbology. To have a way forward, I think we need a coherent design for a style (not code, but an articulation of how it ought to work, first) that uses some kind of symbology for landuse and some other kind for landcover. I naively lean to solid fill, tending to lighter shades, for landuse, and stipple patterns for landcover. I think this is what you are suggesting. It is interesting to think about the 80s USGS topo maps, and surely also interesting to look at other traditional maps for inspiration. The USGS ones were primarily land cover and very little landuse. But they did have a gray "house omission tint" in built-up areas, which I'd say is "this area has many buildings" and is sort of landcover, even though it's a proxy for landuse. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
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
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
