Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
Le mar. 14 aout 2012 à 20:18 +, Johan Jönsson a ecrit : If we replace herbaceous with grass you don´t have to know much about biology. FAO's idea is also to avoid biological and geological terms. The FAO-system relies on that a couple of different data is added, all of them is not needed, it could be refined later. Based on these they can categorize the landcover. Could you please give a link to the FAO schema you are referring to? -- ° /\Guillaume AllègreOpenStreetMap France /~~\/\ allegre.guilla...@free.fr Cartographie libre et collaborative / /~~\tél. 04.76.63.26.99 http://www.openstreetmap.fr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
2012/8/15 Guillaume Allegre allegre.guilla...@free.fr: Could you please give a link to the FAO schema you are referring to? http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y7220e/y7220e00.htm#Contents basically they use a 2 phase classification system, where the first phase is very simple and leads to 8 generic types of landcover. The second phase refines those 8 classes. IMHO in OSM it would make sense to have several tags describing generic properties instead of having one single value with a very specific class. E.g. one tag might be vegetation=trees, shrubs, grass, no, where no could follow the definition given by the FAO, i.e. a total vegetative cover of less than 4% for at least 10 months of the year, or an absence of Woody or Herbaceous life forms and with less than 25% cover of Lichens/Mosses which might sound complicated or lengthy, but for most of the places you find in the real world it would be easy because far from those limits) another tag might describe whether it is a water covered area or not, etc. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
I thought we used natural=* for this kind of thing. For the different broad classes of vegetation discussed so far in this thread, there's natural=grass/scrub/wood. Of course there's natural=water. Other landcover types are uncommon in central Ohio so I'm not familiar with their tagging, but I thought we had natural= values for things like sand, bare rock, swamp, glacier, etc... So why is a new tag or hierarchy needed? Are we just trying to standardize or formalize a presently-haphazard array of tags or values? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
2012/8/15 David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com: I thought we used natural=* for this kind of thing. natural is not defined in a clear way IMHO, it is a mixture of different kind of features, but most of them could be called geographical features and if this was expressed clearly it would introduce some logics that can also help develop new tags for things for which currently there is no tag in general use. Please have a look at the main natural page to review the list of current features: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural IMHO all those would qualify for geographical feature: arete beach bay cave_entrance cliff coastline fell glacier heath peak ridge saddle scrub spring tree_row volcano wetland maybe also stone tree wood grassland while these are not geographical features in this sense: water scree sand mud For the different broad classes of vegetation discussed so far in this thread, there's natural=grass/scrub/wood. Of course there's natural=water. Other landcover types are uncommon in central Ohio so I'm not familiar with their tagging, but I thought we had natural= values for things like sand, bare rock, swamp, glacier, etc... how can sand or bare_rock be in the same category as swamp and glacier? The latter would be mud or ice if we were using the same kind of categorisation IMHO. So why is a new tag or hierarchy needed? Are we just trying to standardize or formalize a presently-haphazard array of tags or values? IMHO introducing a clear logic into the current system would make it easier for everybody. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 35, Issue 32
Hi,I followed the discussion about tagging a railway track or more. From a geografersvieuw its simple, the closer youll go the more youll see. The program hides all the extra info fi a 16 lanes highway or several railtracks aside. At first I want to see a track or road. After closing in Im interested in the complete pic. IMHO in OSM it would make sense to have several tags describing generic properties instead of having one single value with a very specific class. E.g. one tag might be vegetation=trees, shrubs, grass, no, where no could follow the definition given by the FAO, i.e. a total vegetative cover of less than 4% for at least 10 months of the year, or an absence of Woody or Herbaceous life forms and with less than 25% cover of Lichens/Mosses which might sound complicated or lengthy, but for most of the places you find in the real world it would be easy because far from those limits) IMHO is a grass covered area, temporarily, scrubbs and trees are covering it without care in an short period of time, whos tagging it again ? Why not nature as tag in nature reserve area 's. Just to avoid the immage Ive seen, with a large forest area and a view trees besides it. Tagged as beiing a group or a forest. You dont have to worry about the actually grow of the different plants if you use nature and forget if its 1,00 (grass), 3,00 (scrubbs)or 5,00 m (trees) high. Or is that to simple ? Greetz and keep mappingHendrik ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 35, Issue 32
St Niklaas st.niklaas@... writes: IMHO is a grass covered area, temporarily, scrubbs and trees are covering it without care in an short period of time, whos tagging it again ? Why not nature as tag in nature reserve area 's. Just to avoid the immage Ive seen, with a large forest area and a view trees besides it. Tagged as beiing a group or a forest. You dont have to worry about the actually grow of the different plants if you use nature and forget if its 1,00 (grass), 3,00 (scrubbs)or 5,00 m (trees) high. Or is that to simple ? The devil is in the details, if there is ways to map details in ,for instance a wood then it will lead to what you describe. When some areas are mapped in detail it could look strange with the neighbouring areas mapped more generally. In that aspect, there is no difference in mapping landcover. You could still end up in a lot of small detailed areas instead of one big. And just the same you could map large swaths of lands. A forest could be mapped with trees and a grassland with a few trees could be mapped grass. My suggestion is to extend the mapping of a forest with trees trees:cover=closed shrubs:cover=open grass:cover=open this would be a forest with shrubs and grass underneath. trees trees:cover=closed shrubs:cover=absent grass:cover=absent this would be a dark nordic spruce forest. grass trees:cover=sparse shrubs:cover=absent grass:cover=closed this would be a grassland with some trees but no bushes. So the basic idea is that you can map an area with trees and be done with it. If you want you can add more details in other tags of the area, but you do not have too. The map-drawers will probably only look at the first tag trees, but if they want to they can use the other info for something fun. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Why is this user editing in this manner?
Hi http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12742505 I created a multi-polygon (1754193) with an outer, a couple of inners to represent a riverbank with an island (there are other members, but not relevant to this enquiry). To the West of this is a closed way to represent the continuation of the riverbank. This is contiguous with the multi-polygon where they shared a couple of nodes so there were two way segments on top of each other. The latest editor has split both the closed way outer polygon, deleted one of the overlapping ways added the remaining way to both the outer way a newly created multi-polygon (2338583) as a substitute for the closed way. Why has the editor done this? Is there a new preferred reason for doing this? To me it seems a pointless exercise that adds nothing but makes it more confusing for any future editor, especially putting a previously closed way into a multi-polygon. He's done this on numerous occasions around the South of the UK. He seems to think that overlapping ways is bad but his edits appear a bit random - notice he doesn't do a similar edit to the East of the multi-polygon. Cheers Dave F, ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
On 15 August 2012 21:15, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote: So why is a new tag or hierarchy needed? Are we just trying to standardize or formalize a presently-haphazard array of tags or values? The problem at the moment is that we have two types of tags (landcover and landuse) scattered throughout a whole bunch of categories. Even worse, we have tags that are used as landuse=* that are not landuse type, but landcover type. It makes explaining the difference and training people close to impossible. I personally don't care if we set up a landcover= tag or not, as long as we get these tags out of the landuse= tag space. Long version: Landuse tags say what an area is used for - residential, retail, school, park, military base, hospital etc. As a general rule, there is only one landuse tag covering a given area. Not all of these tags are of the form landuse= Landcover tags say what is on a given part of ground - grass, sand, swamp, etc, but also buildings, rivers, roads, sports pitches, gardens, fields etc. Again, as a general rule, landcover areas don't overlap, though ways will often be put through areas rather than split the area in two. It's quite common and even expected for landcover and landuse tags to overlap, however. A single landuse may contain many different landcover tags - the school nearest my house has buildings, car parks, grass, sports pitches, a farm area (animal paddock and crops), a sports hall, and that's just what I can see from the road. It's still all one landuse of school, though. This is confusing enough to mappers without having to say some of the landuse=* tags aren't actually landuse ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Why is this user editing in this manner?
The easiest way to find out is to ask him ;) Looking at his other recent edits, it looks like he is systematically going through and fixing the issues in OSM Inspectors Multipolygon view: http://goo.gl/aWpXQ - It still shows the error as i write this, but the view might have been updated with his edits by the time you click the link. Another good tool to find problems is http://keepright.at/ /Jais On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Dave F. dave...@madasafish.com wrote: Hi http://www.openstreetmap.org/**browse/changeset/12742505http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/12742505 I created a multi-polygon (1754193) with an outer, a couple of inners to represent a riverbank with an island (there are other members, but not relevant to this enquiry). To the West of this is a closed way to represent the continuation of the riverbank. This is contiguous with the multi-polygon where they shared a couple of nodes so there were two way segments on top of each other. The latest editor has split both the closed way outer polygon, deleted one of the overlapping ways added the remaining way to both the outer way a newly created multi-polygon (2338583) as a substitute for the closed way. Why has the editor done this? Is there a new preferred reason for doing this? To me it seems a pointless exercise that adds nothing but makes it more confusing for any future editor, especially putting a previously closed way into a multi-polygon. He's done this on numerous occasions around the South of the UK. He seems to think that overlapping ways is bad but his edits appear a bit random - notice he doesn't do a similar edit to the East of the multi-polygon. Cheers Dave F, __**_ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagginghttp://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
