...@britishideas.com]
Sent: 20 July 2009 17:09
To: osm
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world
mapping ...
I've been adding the national forests in Arizona, and the Wikipedia
definition doesn't fit too well. There are areas here that are inside an
administrative
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:37:32 +1000, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Alice Kaerast wrote:
There is also another property which hasn't been considered - type of
trees. Evergreen vs. Deciduous might be nice to know. Ordnance survey
maps differentiate between coniferous and
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Tyler wrote:
Liz,
I would classify most eucalyptus spp. as deciduous (though judging by your
genus compositions you're in Australia, and I don't know what the species
do there), and probably classify casuarina spp as coniferous... but that's
a bad classification system.
2009/7/23 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
The end result of my quick check is that
1. European or northern hemisphere categories of forest are incompatible with
Australian flora.
2. Standardised category names may be meaningless to mappers who aren't going
to use them if they don't understand them.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:59:41 +0200, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/23 Liz ed...@billiau.net:
The end result of my quick check is that
1. European or northern hemisphere categories of forest are incompatible
with
Australian flora.
2. Standardised category names may
Liz:
the broad categories in the UNEP-WCMC system make sense but the terms don't
cover Mallee and the most common type of surviving Australian forest dry
sclerophyll is a term very few mappers would be familiar with.
The UNEP-WCMC spec specifically says Temperate broadleaf and mixed covers
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:24:10 +1000, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Tyler wrote:
Liz,
I would classify most eucalyptus spp. as deciduous (though judging by
your
genus compositions you're in Australia, and I don't know what the
species
do there), and probably classify
What about reorganizing the structure of the wiki to be something like this?
Basically any item would fall into three main categories - boundary,
landcover or land_use. The boundary or the land_use should be the first
layer then the landcover. For instance, within a park you could have trees,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Greg Troxelg...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
yes, land_use=forestry perhaps implies land_cover=trees,
Not when they've all just been chopped down :-)
land_use=forestry
land_cover = mud_treestumps_and_woodchips
But seriously, there's a difference between an area being
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Greg Troxelg...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
yes, land_use=forestry perhaps implies land_cover=trees,
Not when they've all just been chopped down :-)
land_use=forestry
land_cover = mud_treestumps_and_woodchips
But seriously, there's a difference between an
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Tylertyler.ritc...@gmail.com wrote:
eh... I'm less fond of this, just because I'm not sold on there being 1 and
only 1 land use for an area but I have no supporting evidence to back up my
iffy feeling
Many areas-with-trees in the UK are used for both forestry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:48:17 +0100
Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
So we have (at least) three orthogonal properties
a) Are there trees, swamp, mud or rocks on the ground (land cover)
b) Is the area used for forestry, recreation or
--- On Wed, 22/7/09, Alice Kaerast kaer...@qvox.org wrote:
There is also another property which hasn't been considered
- type of
trees. Evergreen vs. Deciduous might be nice to
know. Ordnance survey
maps differentiate between coniferous and non-coniferous
and has
symbols for coppice
2009/7/22 Alice Kaerast kaer...@qvox.org:
There is also another property which hasn't been considered - type of
trees. Evergreen vs. Deciduous might be nice to know. Ordnance survey
maps differentiate between coniferous and non-coniferous and has
symbols for coppice and orchard.
no, it
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Alice Kaerastkaer...@qvox.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:48:17 +0100
Andy Allan gravityst...@gmail.com wrote:
So we have (at least) three orthogonal properties
a) Are there trees, swamp, mud or rocks on
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Alice Kaerast wrote:
There is also another property which hasn't been considered - type of
trees. Evergreen vs. Deciduous might be nice to know. Ordnance survey
maps differentiate between coniferous and non-coniferous and has
symbols for coppice and orchard.
Another
Liz,
I would classify most eucalyptus spp. as deciduous (though judging by your
genus compositions you're in Australia, and I don't know what the species do
there), and probably classify casuarina spp as coniferous... but that's a
bad classification system. That's like saying this apple is green,
--- On Wed, 22/7/09, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
Another Venn diagram problem.
Our trees are neither coniferous or deciduous, and the
alternate is mixed
Add to that Gum trees are evergreen :)
___
talk mailing list
--- On Tue, 21/7/09, Tyler tyler.ritc...@gmail.com wrote:
landuse. While I'm not convinced national parks,
national forest wilderness areas,
federal/state/county/municipal wildlife reserves
shouldn't be solid fill areas in renderers, I have no
argument that boundary=reserve type is
2009/7/21 John Smith delta_foxt...@yahoo.com:
--- On Tue, 21/7/09, Tyler tyler.ritc...@gmail.com wrote:
landuse. While I'm not convinced national parks,
national forest wilderness areas,
federal/state/county/municipal wildlife reserves
shouldn't be solid fill areas in renderers,
well,
2009/7/21 Tyler tyler.ritc...@gmail.com:
In some cases they are so large that they're used to help orientate
yourself on a map. With out them the map looks less map like.
Correct, Washington State looks naked as low zoom levels without its
corresponding parks and national forests.
than you
--- On Tue, 21/7/09, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
Although it's hard to tell where the ACT is because
state borders don't seem to render at higher levels or when
I fixed them up I over looked something.
yes, that's an issue, there is this rendering problem
(already
May I suggest looking at what people at the CORINE landcover dataset
have defined?
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover/at_download/file
they have a nomenclature describing a classification that is studied and
looks usable to me.
Martin Koppenhoefer schreef:
2009/7/21 Tyler
2009/7/21 Milo van der Linden m...@opengeo.nl:
May I suggest looking at what people at the CORINE landcover dataset
have defined?
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover/at_download/file
they have a nomenclature describing a classification that is studied and
looks usable to me.
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com writes:
2009/7/21 Milo van der Linden m...@opengeo.nl:
May I suggest looking at what people at the CORINE landcover dataset
have defined?
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover/at_download/file
they have a nomenclature describing a
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
On Tuesday 21 Jul 2009 19:37:15 Gustav Foseid wrote:
I would prefer a combination of natural=trees for smaller areas covered
with trees, typically within urban areas, and natural=forest for larger
forests or areas with
(Sorry Tom, for the double sending, I didn't check the reply to: field)
Tom:
I'd really like to nominate someone like Nick Whitelegg as Countryside Tsar
for a day, so he could work out the different basic features we need to
know about in the countryside and an appropriate tagging schema.
--- On Mon, 20/7/09, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
* landuse=forestry (so we know if it's managed for
commercial reasons)
You have parks, state parks, state forests, national parks, nature conservation
areas. The list goes on and on as if someone must keep thinking up new names to
://WWW.ITN.CO.UK
P Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
-Original Message-
From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org] On
Behalf Of Tom Chance
Sent: 20 July 2009 15:43
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its
consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?
-Original Message-
From: talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-boun...@openstreetmap.org]
On Behalf Of Tom Chance
Sent: 20 July 2009 15:43
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: [OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Tom Chance t...@acrewoods.net wrote:
Surely the basic, universal need is there are some trees here, they're
called Sherwood Forest? Evoke natural=wood (lakes and beaches also fall in
between managed and unmanaged land but are marked as natural)
Some trees
On Monday 20 Jul 2009 17:08:30 Andrew Ayre wrote:
I've been adding the national forests in Arizona, and the Wikipedia
definition doesn't fit too well. There are areas here that are inside an
administrative boundary called a National Forest where the trees are
very sparse - 10s of meters
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, David Lynch djly...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm also thinking that deprecating both landuse=forest and
natural=wood might be a good idea if this goes forward. Replace it
with natural=trees, which is just as self-explanitory, and which (to
this particular mapper)
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 13:33, Gustav Foseidgust...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, David Lynch djly...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm also thinking that deprecating both landuse=forest and
natural=wood might be a good idea if this goes forward. Replace it
with natural=trees, which is
On Monday 20 Jul 2009 19:10:06 David Lynch wrote:
I'm also thinking that deprecating both landuse=forest and
natural=wood might be a good idea if this goes forward. Replace it
with natural=trees
Perfect!
Clearly disambiguates the fact that you have trees from the many other
concerns.
2009/7/20 Tyler tyler.ritc...@gmail.com:
What would you then use for a 200 square kilometer continous forest?
landuse=nature_reserve
actually I wouldn't use landuse for natural reserves, they are
boundaries (similar to political/administrative ones), within you can
find several different
Landuse and Landcover are two different things although in some cases
interchangeable.
--
cheers,
maning
--
Freedom is still the most radical idea of all -N.Branden
wiki: http://esambale.wikispaces.com/
blog: http://epsg4253.wordpress.com/
2009/7/21 maning sambale emmanuel.samb...@gmail.com:
Landuse and Landcover are two different things although in some cases
interchangeable.
it doesn't change my point: there can be different reserves /
protective areas at the same area (air, water, natural, ...), together
with different
38 matches
Mail list logo
