Re: [Tagging] Tagging National Forests
W dniu 17.08.2015 4:10, Martijn van Exel napisał(a): But after some discussion I realized that this may be a side effect of a different problem, namely how we tag national forests. In the US, these seem to be tagged as landuse=forest which is only partly true: within a National Forest, many different land uses can occur, only one of them being forest. We had the same problem with imports of national forests in Poland. It's exactly the counterintuitive problem you've mentioned: forest area is not always covered with trees! In our case that was probably just areas being property of the national forest operator Lasy Państwowe (which is the same as National Forests by coincidence =} ). So should we just not tag National Forests as landuse=forest? We started redrawing the boundaries, so the forest is just the ground truth (only the trees), but now I'm not sure that was the best action to take, even if simple and useful. Somebody lately said, that the forest area may include burned areas, young trees fields and other such things. I'm not into the forestry, but it looks we have the opportunity to redefine our trees/forest tags, starting from general understanding what the forest really is and what parts it consists of. While discussions about landcover=trees are useful, they are way too narrow. I feel we need to rethink the whole tree tagging in OSM, because we have no general agreement on the subject: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest The whole issue is not as straightforward as one can reasonably expect. According to Wikipedia: A forest is a large area of land covered with trees or other woody vegetation.[1] Hundreds of more precise definitions of forest are used throughout the world, incorporating factors such as tree density, tree height, land use, legal standing and ecological function.[2][3][4] According to the widely-used[5][6] United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization definition, forests covered an area of four billion hectares (15 million square miles) or approximately 30 percent of the world's land area in 2006.[4] The FAO definition is linked: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4171e/y4171e10.htm and it has about 17 pages on my screen. Actually it's rather good that it is so comprehensive, because it may be a good base for understanding the background and to identify parts we may be interested in. Another idea is to research common GIS practices regarding trees. Anybody willing to get deeper into the subject? -- The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags down [A. Cohen] ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tagging National Forests
For me, forestry is the production of wood, using trees. So a 'forestry area' would include mature trees, young trees, saplings, fresh plantings and places where the trees have been removed. I think that is what is meant by landuse = forest On the other hand there are areas that are covered in trees .. that are not intended to be used for wood products, so natural=wood (or landcover=trees) is more appropriate. On 17/08/2015 7:45 PM, Daniel Koć wrote: W dniu 17.08.2015 4:10, Martijn van Exel napisał(a): But after some discussion I realized that this may be a side effect of a different problem, namely how we tag national forests. In the US, these seem to be tagged as landuse=forest which is only partly true: within a National Forest, many different land uses can occur, only one of them being forest. We had the same problem with imports of national forests in Poland. It's exactly the counterintuitive problem you've mentioned: forest area is not always covered with trees! In our case that was probably just areas being property of the national forest operator Lasy Państwowe (which is the same as National Forests by coincidence =} ). So should we just not tag National Forests as landuse=forest? We started redrawing the boundaries, so the forest is just the ground truth (only the trees), but now I'm not sure that was the best action to take, even if simple and useful. Somebody lately said, that the forest area may include burned areas, young trees fields and other such things. I'm not into the forestry, but it looks we have the opportunity to redefine our trees/forest tags, starting from general understanding what the forest really is and what parts it consists of. While discussions about landcover=trees are useful, they are way too narrow. I feel we need to rethink the whole tree tagging in OSM, because we have no general agreement on the subject: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest The whole issue is not as straightforward as one can reasonably expect. According to Wikipedia: A forest is a large area of land covered with trees or other woody vegetation.[1] Hundreds of more precise definitions of forest are used throughout the world, incorporating factors such as tree density, tree height, land use, legal standing and ecological function.[2][3][4] According to the widely-used[5][6] United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization definition, forests covered an area of four billion hectares (15 million square miles) or approximately 30 percent of the world's land area in 2006.[4] The FAO definition is linked: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4171e/y4171e10.htm and it has about 17 pages on my screen. Actually it's rather good that it is so comprehensive, because it may be a good base for understanding the background and to identify parts we may be interested in. Another idea is to research common GIS practices regarding trees. Anybody willing to get deeper into the subject? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tagging National Forests
Hi, The new rendering of forests broke cases where a lake is inside a forest and the lake is not mapped as an inner section of the surrounding forest polygon. I posted this issue in the carto issue tracker: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1754 But after some discussion I realized that this may be a side effect of a different problem, namely how we tag national forests. In the US, these seem to be tagged as landuse=forest which is only partly true: within a National Forest, many different land uses can occur, only one of them being forest. So should we just not tag National Forests as landuse=forest? Martijn van Exel skype: mvexel ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
