Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland
On 5/1/20 12:12 PM, John Willis via Tagging wrote: There is often overlap where I am where a wetland lives permanently in the bottom of a basin, and the surrounding area is a park or sports field. When there is a storm the basin fills up and wetland, pitch, and parking lot end up under 3m of water for a day or so. The wetland is not exclusively part of that structure. The basin or intermittent reservoir consumes everything inside of it. [..] In a lake, some corner of the lake is often a wetland - yet that wetland is 100% the part of the lake. It should be layered IMO. That could happen for a wetland too, right? I always thought of the lake as part of the wetland - but now you open my mind to the reverse... What I'm attempting to tag is seasonal Sahelian lakes, the core of which is often permanent, surrounded by a humidity gradient of swamp and mudflats - often surrounded by vegetable gardens. Indeed, the whole area is what is often designated as "lake something"... Would that be the correct way or is the lake the water body stricto sensu ? Then comes the question of of to tag - but that part of the answer I guess is multipolygon too. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland
If you are talking about a simple wetland you may find in a small pond or lake, It’s easy, but natural formations are often very messy and complicated - especially when a wetland covers an area larger than most villages. There is often overlap where I am where a wetland lives permanently in the bottom of a basin, and the surrounding area is a park or sports field. When there is a storm the basin fills up and wetland, pitch, and parking lot end up under 3m of water for a day or so. The wetland is not exclusively part of that structure. The basin or intermittent reservoir consumes everything inside of it. I have 3 basins In my area that are 5KM wide that 363 days a year are wetland, sports complexes, airstrips, parks, etc. then a typhoon hits and fills it with 3m of water for a day or so. The structure of the surrounding area still influences the smaller area, like a river way going through a giant wetland. In a lake, some corner of the lake is often a wetland - yet that wetland is 100% the part of the lake. It should be layered IMO. That could happen for a wetland too, right? Maybe I am looking at it in a wrong way. A multipolygon might be a good solution for some of these pond in wetland situations (like an island in a lake), but won’t there also be some cases with water features where the they truly are 2 things in the same space? Can it always be validated as “wrong?” Javbw > On May 1, 2020, at 3:36 AM, Andy Townsend wrote: > > >> On 30/04/2020 19:09, Paul Allen wrote: >> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 18:45, Andy Townsend via Tagging >> wrote: >> >>> There are always going to be edge cases that aren't easy to categorise. >>> There's an area just up the road from where I am currently that started out >>> as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13866095 >> >> That's coming up as deleted 6 years ago by Yorvik Prestigitator. Typo? >> > No - follow the history forward and you'll get to > https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/796675406 . I was doing some tidying up of > the fence, woodland and ditches at > https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84161134#map=19/54.02644/-0.99852 a > few days ago and the object "moved" to a new ID. For convenience it would > have made sense to link to that as well, obviously :) > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland
> Vast areas of Australia are used to raise cattle, no tillage yet they are 'used' for farm land. And they are natural scrub... These areas are considered "rangeland" in North American English. I would not tag them as landuse=farmland, because they are only lightly touched by human intervention, in most cases they are natural vegetations which has always been grazed by various animals (in the past, by American Bison or Elk, now by sheep or cattle). I agree that landuse=farmland is mostly limited to cropland: we have other tags for meadows, pastures, farmyards, orchards, vineyards, etc. - though certainly there are some meadows or orchards or farmyards that are currently tagged as landuse=farmland for various reasons. I have not seen any scrub or semi-desert rangeland tagged as landuse=farmland. -- Joseph Eisenberg On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 6:58 PM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/5/20 9:14 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 01:25, Florian Lohoff wrote: > > I also do consider overlapping natural and landuses to be a bug, >> either its a natural=scrub or a landuse=farmland. It cant be both. >> > > Sorry, Florian, but why do you say that? > > I've seen a lot of farms with scrub on them! > > > And trees used as wind breaks and to provide shelter for animals (both > 'farm' and 'natural'). > > > A problem is the OSM definition may suggest only those areas used for > tillage are 'farmland'. > > Vast areas of Australia are used to raise cattle, no tillage yet they are > 'used' for farm land. And they are natural scrub... > > Some areas are used for both military (a rocket range) and for farming > (they get bunkers for use when firing takes place!). They are > natural=scrub/sand/lake (dry salt)/*. > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland
On 1/5/20 9:14 am, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 01:25, Florian Lohoff mailto:f...@zz.de>> wrote: I also do consider overlapping natural and landuses to be a bug, either its a natural=scrub or a landuse=farmland. It cant be both. Sorry, Florian, but why do you say that? I've seen a lot of farms with scrub on them! And trees used as wind breaks and to provide shelter for animals (both 'farm' and 'natural'). A problem is the OSM definition may suggest only those areas used for tillage are 'farmland'. Vast areas of Australia are used to raise cattle, no tillage yet they are 'used' for farm land. And they are natural scrub... Some areas are used for both military (a rocket range) and for farming (they get bunkers for use when firing takes place!). They are natural=scrub/sand/lake (dry salt)/*. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland
On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 01:25, Florian Lohoff wrote: I also do consider overlapping natural and landuses to be a bug, > either its a natural=scrub or a landuse=farmland. It cant be both. > Sorry, Florian, but why do you say that? I've seen a lot of farms with scrub on them! Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland
On 30/04/2020 19:09, Paul Allen wrote: On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 18:45, Andy Townsend via Tagging mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote: There are always going to be edge cases that aren't easy to categorise. There's an area just up the road from where I am currently that started out as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13866095 That's coming up as deleted 6 years ago by Yorvik Prestigitator. Typo? No - follow the history forward and you'll get to https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/796675406 . I was doing some tidying up of the fence, woodland and ditches at https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/84161134#map=19/54.02644/-0.99852 a few days ago and the object "moved" to a new ID. For convenience it would have made sense to link to that as well, obviously :) Best Regards, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland
On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 at 18:45, Andy Townsend via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: There are always going to be edge cases that aren't easy to categorise. > There's an area just up the road from where I am currently that started out > as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13866095 > That's coming up as deleted 6 years ago by Yorvik Prestigitator. Typo? -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland
On 30/04/2020 16:29, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > wetland area within a forest where trees are growing also within the wetland area That’s a “swamp”: natural=wetland + wetland=swamp https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wetland%3Dswamp ... or it might be seasonal or intermittent, depending on the weather. There are always going to be edge cases that aren't easy to categorise. There's an area just up the road from where I am currently that started out as https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/13866095 in 2007 and has been continuously refined ever since. The main area's mapped as natural=heath now (and that's probably as good a bet as any for what "most of it" is), but there are areas that are wetter than others and areas that are drier; and areas with more trees and areas with fewer trees. There are some permanent ponds but many more "it'll only be wet here N months of the year", where N might be anything between 2 and 11. Any attempt to draw lines between "wood", "wetland" and "water" is a compromise, and to me it's perfectly understandably to sometimes have those overlapping (though in the example above it is something I've tried to avoid). Best Regards, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland
> wetland area within a forest where trees are growing also within the wetland area That’s a “swamp”: natural=wetland + wetland=swamp https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wetland%3Dswamp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamp#Differences_between_marshes_and_swamps ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 04:36:31PM +0200, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > Consider a wetland that contains a water body. I'm used to map that as > natural=water inside natural=wetland - no multipolygon fanciness, just one > on top of the other. JOSM validator complains about it, which irks me, so I > opened a ticket at https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/19171 - where mdk > suggests that I may be doing it wrong... > > Is my simple way incorrect ? It feels correct to me because wetlands are > complex objects - water bodies are part of them, cross them or partially > overlap them. From a tagging point of view, it implies that some area is > both natural=water and natural=wetland - I see no problem with that... But > others might consider that a logical impossibility. > > So, which is the correct way: plain natural=water inside natural=wetland, or > a natural=water multipolygon with natural=wetland on its inner ? I have myself some QA stuff running and i also do consider this a bug. A squaremeter can either be wetland or open water e.g a pond. So cant simply layer them. I also do consider overlapping natural and landuses to be a bug, either its a natural=scrub or a landuse=farmland. It cant be both. I agree that there are corner cases where this fails. E.g a pond in a landuse=residential or landuse=forest. Its still the forest. Flo -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland
Hi, I would create a multipolygon for that. Wetland is something different than a lake/pond. For wetland the wiki says, that wetland areas contain "characteristic vegetation that is adapted to its unique soil conditions" [0]. A lake obviously doesn't (at least no land-vegetation like grass and bushes) and this is why an area cannot be wetland *and* lake at the same time. And this is why I consider a multipolygon to be correct. There might be situations, where two different areas have to be on top of each other (e.g. a wetland area within a forest where trees are growing also within the wetland area?), but I thing most of the time there's only one landuse that fits. Of course there might be some discussion but I would consider a multipolygon to be correct in your specific example. Hauke [0] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwetland On 30.04.20 16:36, Jean-Marc Liotier wrote: > Consider a wetland that contains a water body. I'm used to map that as > natural=water inside natural=wetland - no multipolygon fanciness, just > one on top of the other. JOSM validator complains about it, which irks > me, so I opened a ticket at https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/19171 - > where mdk suggests that I may be doing it wrong... > > Is my simple way incorrect ? It feels correct to me because wetlands are > complex objects - water bodies are part of them, cross them or partially > overlap them. From a tagging point of view, it implies that some area is > both natural=water and natural=wetland - I see no problem with that... > But others might consider that a logical impossibility. > > So, which is the correct way: plain natural=water inside > natural=wetland, or a natural=water multipolygon with natural=wetland on > its inner ? > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] natural=water inside natural=wetland
Consider a wetland that contains a water body. I'm used to map that as natural=water inside natural=wetland - no multipolygon fanciness, just one on top of the other. JOSM validator complains about it, which irks me, so I opened a ticket at https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/19171 - where mdk suggests that I may be doing it wrong... Is my simple way incorrect ? It feels correct to me because wetlands are complex objects - water bodies are part of them, cross them or partially overlap them. From a tagging point of view, it implies that some area is both natural=water and natural=wetland - I see no problem with that... But others might consider that a logical impossibility. So, which is the correct way: plain natural=water inside natural=wetland, or a natural=water multipolygon with natural=wetland on its inner ? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
