Sorry for not answering for so long time.
Only recently we have a meeting of a small local group of OSM mappers that are preparing a land cover data import. We have analysed the “problematic” tags (natural=heath, natural=moor and natural=bare_rock). We have been looking to already imported data and we have generally agreed that existing tagging might be problematic. We have concluded that natural=scrub corresponds to raba:id=1410 much closely. Not really exact – but the estimation is than more than 80% of existing elements of raba:id=1410 could be classified as natural=scrub. We have concluded that these elements should be imported with tag natural=scrub. Situation with raba:id=5000 and raba:id=6000 is much more confusing. We have been agreed that these two elements should not be imported. Prior to importing new areas existing data imported will be improved: - - Elements with raba:id=5000 and 6000 will be deleted - - - Elements with raba:id=1410 will be changed to natural=scrub We are intending to use JOSM with query operation (like: *user:the_one_who_import and “raba:id” =1410*) for each area (tile) already imported. If there is any better technique to perform such operation, please let us know. Best regards, Martin On 12 July 2015 at 18:36, Christoph Hormann <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday 12 July 2015, colored stone wrote: > > Please find clarifications/explanations on the Slovene agricultural > > land use (shortly RABA-KGZ) to OSM tag translations. For the > > clarifications we have mainly used the “methodological paper on > > agricultural land use” or “the interpretation rules” available at > > http://rkg.gov.si/GERK/documents/RABA_IntKljuc_20131009.pdf. > > [...] > > Thanks for the additional information. I won't argue the points based > on the methodological paper in detail since i can not read it in the > original language and i am not sufficiently familiar with the data to > judge how well the actual data complies with the specifications. > > A few general points though: > > - use of landcover tags, in particular things like natural=scrub and > natural=heath in OSM is frequently quite inprecise. This is not a good > reason to be less strict with tagging in an import. > - the OSM landcover tagging unlike the classification scheme of your > source data is not a closed system. Not every area on earth matches > one of the OSM tags. > - individual positive examples do not mean much - no one questions that > each of the source data classes also contains areas that match the > planned OSM tags. The question is how much of the data does *not* > match the planned tagging. > > Therefore here a few examples from the already imported data of what > does not match your planned tagging: > > natural=heath: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353487056 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353231651 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5271375 > > As far as i can see most of these are grassland (or other herbaceous > vegetation like ferns as well as Blackberries, other Rosaceae and > similar plants) with a varying amount of larger scrubs and mostly > smaller trees. In many cases this is land that is in the process of > being reclaimed by trees - either previously cut forest areas or former > farmland no more used. natural=heath specifically means dwarf scrub > vegetation (that is species that naturally do not grow tall, not young > trees). In Slovenia's climate this is rare outside high mountain > areas. > > Interestingly most areas that would qualify as natural=heath are > probably included in class 5000. > > natural=moor (to be natural=fell): > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353333307 > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5274011 > as well as all other areas with this tag except for the Alps - none of > this is close to the alpine tree line so natural=fell does not match. > Use in the Alps is questionable as well but since natural=fell is a > fairly vague tag you can't really say it is wrong. > > natural=bare_rock: > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/351883914 > that is a great example for natural=scree - and here it is specifically > excluding the rock area above > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/5252002 > mixture of bare_rock, scree and sparsely vegetated areas > > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353153325 > that would be natural=shingle > > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > _______________________________________________ > Imports mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports >
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
