Hi Joost, Yes, I'm interested in your land-use analysis that you did. Did you share or present the code somewhere? Maybe we can plan smthg for the next FOSS4G.be event?
A discussion about a tag "forest_management_style=*"? Wow, it can be dangerous, especially if we have hunting supporters vs timber producers vs naturalists in the osm tagging list;-). I doubt that we can find global tag that apply to the many different way forests can be managed. Otherwise, certification of the forests (eg FSC, PEFC) can be less equivocal and I've seen this tag was already proposed <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/certification>. Julien On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 10:03 AM, joost schouppe <joost.schou...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Julien, > > * How would you feel about building a proposal about > forest_management_style=* ? To my great surprise, I noticed I kind of like > mingling in the endless discussions at the tagging mailing list. So I would > be willing to help out. > > * Quantitative analysis of landuse mapping in Belgium: I did that. The > idea was to generate a useful dataset of landuse at the level of the > statistical sectors. So I made a classification of several layers > (residential, nature, water, transport infrastructure). Then I did some GIS > processing: to create polygons out of roads and POIs. Then I needed to > choose in which layer to count the landuse, for example sometimes there's a > huge residential area with everything just mapped on top of that. So then > you need to decide if a park in a residential area is a park or a > residential area. > I can share method and result. We could set up a voice meeting on Riot ( > https://riot.im/app/#/room/#osmbe:matrix.org) so others can join in case > they're interested. > > * The end result should be a landuse convention, yes. > > 2017-04-27 9:51 GMT+02:00 Julien Minet <jumi...@gmail.com>: > >> Thanks for your reactions! >> >> * About the tag natural=wood, I also think it is over-represented in >> Belgium. Belgian forests are indeed not only managed for timber production >> but also hunting, tourism and nature conservation, but often in an >> integrated manner under the same areas (at least in theory!). Note that the >> Natura 2000 program does not preclude at all that timber wood is produced! >> See on this link how much forests in south of Wallonia are covered by >> Natura 2000: >> http://geoportail.wallonie.be/walonmap#SHARE=4E2203C158780AB5E053D0AFA49D7D23. >> >> <http://geoportail.wallonie.be/walonmap#SHARE=4E2203C158780AB5E053D0AFA49D7D23> >> >> * I did not talk about the landcover tag in my article but it'd be worth >> talking more about it! >> >> * It would be interesting to quantitavely analyse the ways landuse is >> mapped in Belgium. I'm thinking about it. Any ideas on how, what kind of >> analysis are welcome... >> >> * Summarizing this discussion in osm.be could be nice. But why not also >> create a "landuse convention" page on the OSM wiki >> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions>? >> >> >> Julien >> >> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:26 AM, joost schouppe < >> joost.schou...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> * About forests, I tend to agree with the natural=wood not really >>> existing in Belgium. The only exception I know of is a bit of the >>> Zoniënwoud (Kersselaerplein) that has had "zero management" for 34 years >>> now. >>> But most natural=wood I've seen is wrong. >>> >>> Just recently, I changed the Bois de La Houssiere ( >>> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/50.6189/4.1948) from wood to >>> forest. It's a bit of a special case: it's a Natura 2000 protected area, >>> but it is also actively used as a forestry area. >>> >>> I agree with the comments above that landuse=forest for any kind of >>> group of trees is annoying too. >>> >>> - In cases where you have residential areas in a forest, or wooded areas >>> in gardens, maybe we should really encourage the use of the landcover tag? >>> - In cases where forests are managed, but as some kind of nature reserve >>> or natural area, maybe we could use a subtag to indicate the management >>> style? That would allow to differentiate between real forestry and forests >>> with nature-friendly management. You could use one of the many nature >>> reserve tags of course, but I'm not sure all naturally managed forests are >>> protected and the Bois de la Houssiere shows the opposite also exists. >>> >>> >>> * On a more detailed note: I had never heard of the taxon tag, I've only >>> used species before. I'm completely confused now :) >>> And are the values REALLY comma separated, not " ; " seperated? >>> >>> * About OSM.be: we're still thinking about what exactly we want to use >>> the Projects for - the fact we don't really know was shown quite clearly by >>> Marc's latest article. >>> >>> I think we could have an OSM.be project on "Harmonizing tagging in >>> OpenStreetMap". It would first explain really short how tagging works, and >>> why it can be something problematic. Then it could define goals, one of >>> which could be "harmonizing tagging practices about landuse mapping in >>> Belgium". Next it could define a series of sub-projects, like "discussing >>> and creating consensus about best practices" (with links to this discussion >>> and Julien's article). Another one could be setting up a Maproulette task >>> to check certain suspicious cases (like the hundreds of natural=grassland >>> around the Bois de la Houssiere). Lastly, it should contain an invitation >>> and specific pointers on how to participate in the project. >>> >>> 2017-04-26 5:16 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> Julien, and others, >>>> >>>> thanks a lot for this text. I still have to go through all the >>>> details, but here are already some remarks. >>>> >>>> - Me too, would love to see landuse=forest be used in a more strict >>>> way, only for areas where timber is really used for commercial >>>> purposes. It's even possible that at certain periods there are no >>>> trees in such areas. For the rest I would love that landcover=trees >>>> would be more accepted and rendered. >>>> One of the reasons is that landuse=forest clashes with e.g. >>>> landuse=residential in large private parks. But I fear too any people >>>> stick to their "managed" definition and just want to see trees on the >>>> default map. >>>> >>>> - Some mapper split a landuse=farmyard and use landuse=residential >>>> around the farm itself. I do not do this. What do you think about this >>>> ? >>>> >>>> - During one of my recent walks I found some areas like >>>> https://xian.smugmug.com/OSM/OSM-2017/2017-04-02-Postel-AK/i-5D62hDt >>>> some were larger than what you see on this picture, I think I would >>>> use natural=grassland on those. Other suggestions ? It was hard to >>>> take a better picture >>>> >>>> - Often it is better to use natural=tree_row instead of >>>> landuse=forest/natural=wood IMHO. >>>> >>>> regards >>>> >>>> m >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Julien Minet <jumi...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> > Hi list, >>>> > >>>> > Following some discussions about landuse=farmland|meadow some times >>>> ago in >>>> > this list, I've written an article here >>>> > (http://www.nobohan.be/2017/04/20/landuse-osm-belgium/) about >>>> land-use >>>> > mapping in Belgium: what could be the best practices adapted to the >>>> Belgian >>>> > landscape. Of course, there's matter for discussions about that topic >>>> ;-) >>>> > >>>> > I think this text could be used to make a page on >>>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/, >>>> since >>>> > it discuss what are the local conventions for land-use mapping in >>>> Belgium. >>>> > >>>> > Do you also want to put this text on osm.be, similarly to the Marc >>>> Gemis >>>> > articles? Maybe a better place for discussions... >>>> > >>>> > Cheers, >>>> > >>>> > Julien >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Talk-be mailing list >>>> > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >>>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>>> > >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Talk-be mailing list >>>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Joost Schouppe >>> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | >>> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn >>> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup >>> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-be mailing list >>> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> Talk-be@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> >> > > > -- > Joost Schouppe > OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | > Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup > <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > Talk-be@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
