Re: [Tagging] RFC: new key Landcover
some good illustrative photos at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrubland On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Richard Welty rwe...@averillpark.netwrote: On 11/16/10 10:29 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2010/11/16 Richard Weltyrwe...@averillpark.net: On 11/16/10 10:11 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: i like it. i would definitely move scrub from natural to landcover. there are large areas which are properly called that, with sporadic trees and the rest of the cover being of a bushier form. but wouldn't that be landcover=bushes (where they are)? Is scrub something like heath, beach, bay, wetland, fell? Then it would be OK in natural IMHO. Or something like tree, grass, rock? Then it would be OK for landcover IMHO. scrub is generally a mixture of trees and bush sized objects, frequently on sandy soil. the interior of Florida features extensive pine scrub, with a scattering of very large pine trees and lots of palmettos (bush sized relatives of the palm tree) filling the space. here in Albany (upstate NY) we have the Pine Bush, which again is pine trees interspersed with bushes. it's a very well defined ecological niche. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: new key Landcover
2010/11/16 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de: Maybe a few examples can help clarify this: What key would I use to describe the surface of a race track in a stadium - landcover or surface? surface Would the same surface material on the basketball court next to it (clearly an area, not linear) be tagged differently? no, that would be surface as well. I'd say the distinction is between the surface and the coverage (which comprises the surface). surface=bush or tree would not make any sense IMHO. surface=asphalt is fine for the surface, the landcover would be the street which is not only the surface of the street. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: new key Landcover
On 11/16/10 12:43 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: no, that would be surface as well. I'd say the distinction is between the surface and the coverage (which comprises the surface). surface=bush or tree would not make any sense IMHO. surface=asphalt is fine for the surface, the landcover would be the street which is not only the surface of the street. my attempt at clarification: surface is used where the mapped entity is man-made (or modified, e.g. dirt roads.) richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: new key Landcover
2010/11/16 Brad Neuhauser brad.neuhau...@gmail.com: some good illustrative photos at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrubland I think that it is clear what kind of areas are shrublands, the question is if it qualifies for landcover (e.g. desert or beach or wetland do not qualify for landcover). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: new key Landcover
On 16/11/2010, at 16.11, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: I set up a proposal for a new key landcover. Thank you, Martin. This is an excellent proposal, that formalises in OSM's tagging scheme the classical distinction between physical ( landcover) and human (landuse) geography. This will enable users to generate a reference map [0] as well as a thematic map [1] from OSM data. It will facilitate more rigorous scientific uses of OSM in the fields of biology, geography and geology, and it will enable scientists to contribute their data to OSM, as well as the use of OSM as a scientific tool. Cheers, Morten [0] http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/r.html#reference_map [1] http://www.physicalgeography.net/physgeoglos/t.html#thematic_map ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: new key Landcover
Am 16.11.2010 18:48, schrieb Richard Welty: On 11/16/10 12:43 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: no, that would be surface as well. I'd say the distinction is between the surface and the coverage (which comprises the surface). surface=bush or tree would not make any sense IMHO. surface=asphalt is fine for the surface, the landcover would be the street which is not only the surface of the street. my attempt at clarification: surface is used where the mapped entity is man-made (or modified, e.g. dirt roads.) While I understand, what you mean, there is a weakness in that logic: A path in the wood made by humans is man-made - so you would tag it e.g. as surface=dirt; but if it's made by animals on their way to the water, it's landcover=dirt? On the other hand the Lüneburger Heide in Germany is man-made some 100 years ago by exploitation of the woods (kept as it is by extensive sheep pasturing). So here it's surface? Just for further thinking about. regards Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: new key Landcover
On 16/11/2010, at 20.45, Peter Wendorff wrote: Am 16.11.2010 18:48, schrieb Richard Welty: On 11/16/10 12:43 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: no, that would be surface as well. I'd say the distinction is between the surface and the coverage (which comprises the surface). surface=bush or tree would not make any sense IMHO. surface=asphalt is fine for the surface, the landcover would be the street which is not only the surface of the street. my attempt at clarification: surface is used where the mapped entity is man-made (or modified, e.g. dirt roads.) While I understand, what you mean, there is a weakness in that logic: A path in the wood made by humans is man-made - so you would tag it e.g. as surface=dirt; but if it's made by animals on their way to the water, it's landcover=dirt? On the other hand the Lüneburger Heide in Germany is man-made some 100 years ago by exploitation of the woods (kept as it is by extensive sheep pasturing). So here it's surface? surface is a property of something man-made, i.e. it's in the human geography domain. It makes perfect sense for roads and traffic infrastructure. As a matter of lingual preference, I also prefer surface to describe something 2-dimensional, i.e. I do not like e.g. surface=building. Generally, surface is the property of something else. -- Morten ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: new key Landcover
2010/11/16 Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.dk: surface is a property of something man-made, i.e. it's in the human geography domain. It makes perfect sense for roads and traffic infrastructure. As a matter of lingual preference, I also prefer surface to describe something 2-dimensional, i.e. I do not like e.g. surface=building. Generally, surface is the property of something else. I partly agree, but surface is not limited to man made. There is also the surface of a water body (lake, ...) for instance. Surface is about the surface. I agree with your statement in your other post: surface is not suited for soil, geology or anything else that is above or below the surface. Surface is 2-dimensional, a very thin layer. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: new key Landcover
To expand upon my earlier example, imagine a sandy beach with some exposed rock outcroppings, and sand dunes with beach grass growing on them. The entire area would be tagged with natural=beach. Exposed rocks would be tagged with surface=rock, and the rest with surface=sand. In addition, areas with beach grass would be tagged with landcover=beach_grass. The reason for tagging areas with beach grass or other vegetation is that you are generally forbidden from driving on or otherwise damaging the vegetation, as this would allow the sand dunes to shift position when the wind blows. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [Tagging] RFC: new key Landcover From :mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com Date :Tue Nov 16 15:22:44 America/Chicago 2010 2010/11/16 Morten Kjeldgaard m...@bioxray.dk: surface is a property of something man-made, i.e. it's in the human geography domain. It makes perfect sense for roads and traffic infrastructure. As a matter of lingual preference, I also prefer surface to describe something 2-dimensional, i.e. I do not like e.g. surface=building. Generally, surface is the property of something else. I partly agree, but surface is not limited to man made. There is also the surface of a water body (lake, ...) for instance. Surface is about the surface. I agree with your statement in your other post: surface is not suited for soil, geology or anything else that is above or below the surface. Surface is 2-dimensional, a very thin layer. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] RFC: new key Landcover
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer napsal(a): I set up a proposal for a new key landcover. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover It deprecates very few old values (mud and sand from natural, grass from landuse). Thank you very much for writing this down, this is exactly what OSM needs... Personally, I would include the suggested landcover=water, it makes perfect sense. Petr signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
