Jeg deltar denne diskusjon på Engelsk fordi min Norsk er ikke så bra :-) This diskussion is as old as OSM. We had it in Germany, and we had it in Norway as well.
In fact, it just depends of map-users point-of-view, or map-users interest. A biologist, an environmentalist, a landowner, a tourist or hiker/skier, a pilot, a hunter, they all will have a different approach to the classification of wood ./. forest. (I am a geologist) OSM can, through its standard tags, only deliver a "Base Map", suitable for a general purpose. Everything beyond this needs to be tagged either with special tags within OSM, or through independant, linked databases for special purposes. Now, what in common sense would be a "Forest" in Norway, what would be "Wood"? As a foreigner I am probably not the most competent person to argue about the wording, but I believe that the view of a "casual environmentally caretaking person" e.g. a nature-friendly hiker matches most peoples' general idea. What does this mean in practice, for Norway? Landuse = Forest: This is all forest which is planted (or replanted) in rows, cut down and reforested as a whole area (or subsquares), the trees being of equal age and not much undergrowth to see. From what I have seen so far (have been travelling a lot through Norway) this would probably apply to 20 % of all tree areas. Natural = Wood: All not so intensely treated tree areas, e.g. only part of the trees cut out every few years, existing undergrowth, generally most uneven/rocky terrain areas which have not been paved for agricultural forestery, and so forth. Probably the other 80 %. Most of Nordmarka would probably fall into this category. Categories like "virgin forest" are not really suitable in a general map. Also, I doubt anybody without special knowledge could judge it. In Europe, including Scandinavia, there is only *very few* untouched forest left, which for the ordinary visitor of the map would be rather identified through its protection status and name than through it's shade of green. I hope this helps a bit in the discussion. When I mapped forest in Norway so far, I always used "Natural = Wood", to stress that I found a forest with a wide variety of tree ages and species, which generally looked "nice", in the common sense ;-). Hils, Stefan Am 07.01.2013 16:45, schrieb Einar Ryeng: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 04:27:19PM +0100, Guttorm Flatabø wrote: >> 2013/1/7 Einar Ryeng <[email protected]> >>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 03:30:07PM +0100, Vidar Gundersen wrote: >>>> 2013/1/7 Steinar Hamre <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>>> Så selv om 90% av skogen i Oslomarka og andre kystnære områder har vært >>>>> hogget en gang, betyr ikke det at den vil bli hogget igjen. (Skogen >>>>> langs Ekebergåsen er plantet, men tenk dere ramaskrikene hvis noen >>>>> skulle snauhogge, det er jo knapt åpnet for å utvide stier.) >>>> Viktig poeng. Og interessant å vise i et kart? >>> Jeg synes dette er lite interessant, spesielt å vise i et kart, men også å >>> ha i databasen. For visning i kart er vel folk mest interessert i hvorvidt >>> det er høye grønne ting der, ikke om de ble hugget en gang eller skal >>> hugges en dag. >>> >> Eg forsto Steinar slik at dette var ein måte å identifisere kva som er >> hogstskog. Poenget er vel å iallfall identifisere monokulturell skog / skog >> for hogst på den eine sida, og urskog på den andre. Urskog (virgin?) må vel >> identifiserast av biologar som har greie på det. > Hva om vi standardiserer på én skog-tag, og legger alt det andre (skogen er > drevet, skogen er fredet, trærne står på rekke, her er det bare stubber, ...) > inn i ekstra-tagger? > _______________________________________________ kart mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nuug.no/mailman/listinfo/kart
