Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

[Warin]

On 4/8/20 7:17 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Everyone, the voting period for natural=bare_ground is still open for 
4 more days.


I would recommend voting "no" on the current definition, unfortunately.

As mentioned above, the current definition is far too broad, and could 
easily be construed to include areas under construction, areas of bare 
soil due to use by people as a pathway or road area,
These are 'land use' not 'land cover' and can be tagged separately. They 
are orthogonal.
and many sorts of arid and semi-natural areas, including those that 
are partially covered by shrubs, heath, grass or other sparse vegetation,


The question is, what is dominate? An area of trees that is mostly trees 
should be tagged as trees, if it is mostly bear earth then tagged as 
bare earth...


OSM already has areas of combined trees and shrubs where the general 
guide used is tag what is dominate. No need to single this proposal with 
partial coverings as it applies to all of the present OSM tagging.



or even areas of farmland that are currently fallow.

Again a land use not a land cover.


Please see the discussion and objections on 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground


I think it is a good idea to have a way to tag bare soil which is not 
sand (natural=sand) or mostly stones (natural=shingle/scree) or mud, 
but we need a clear, limited definition which does not fit with 
human-use areas like roads, dirt parking lots, construction sites, 
abandoned quarries etc, and there needs to be more consideration about 
when the tag should be used instead of natural=heath and natural=scrub 
in arid regions where there are scattered bushes.


For the proposal author, I would suggest mapping some local features 
in your area which would fit the proposed definition, and then come 
back with photos plus aerial imagery of the areas which ought to be 
mapped with this tag. So far it has been mostly hypothetical, which 
makes it hard to understand which sorts of landscapes would qualify 
for this tag.



I think this is similar to the tags surface=earth and surface=dirt, both 
are poorly defined.


Perhaps these 2 tags would be better as surface=soil???


The proposal sates "An area covered by soil" so it should be natural=soil.

The description could then be "The upper layer of the planet earth being 
a material typically consisting of a mixture of organic remains, clay, 
and rock particles." ???



Of course the usual exclusions apply;

majority is soil

where a more detailed value applies, use it eg natural=clay if the 
majority of the area is covered by clay.






- Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:58 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:




sent from a phone

> On 27. Jul 2020, at 13:41, Michael Montani
mailto:michael.mont...@un.org>> wrote:
>
> I eventually found on-the-ground images of the feature I would
like to propose / map.


are these suggested to be represented as polygons? How would the
border be determined? I looks from the imagery as if there is a
smooth transition of these „features“ and neighbouring land which
isn’t completely bare. Did you try to map some of these and if
yes, could you please post a link to an area where a few are mapped?

Transitions from, say, trees to shrubs also occur. The guide is to map 
what is dominate, when domination changes is where the 'border' is. OSM 
does not have tagging for mixed areas, if you want it .. propose it?



Cheers Martin 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

[pangoSE]

Thanks for the heads up Joseph. I also read what Imagico wrote1 and voted no.
I recommend others to do the same.

Cheers 
pangoSE
1 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proposed_features/Ground=253931=2016970=2016363

Joseph Eisenberg  skrev: (3 augusti 2020 23:17:18 
CEST)
>Everyone, the voting period for natural=bare_ground is still open for 4
>more days.
>
>I would recommend voting "no" on the current definition, unfortunately.
>
>As mentioned above, the current definition is far too broad, and could
>easily be construed to include areas under construction, areas of bare
>soil
>due to use by people as a pathway or road area, and many sorts of arid
>and
>semi-natural areas, including those that are partially covered by
>shrubs,
>heath, grass or other sparse vegetation, or even areas of farmland that
>are
>currently fallow.
>
>Please see the discussion and objections on
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground
>
>I think it is a good idea to have a way to tag bare soil which is not
>sand
>(natural=sand) or mostly stones (natural=shingle/scree) or mud, but we
>need
>a clear, limited definition which does not fit with human-use areas
>like
>roads, dirt parking lots, construction sites, abandoned quarries etc,
>and
>there needs to be more consideration about when the tag should be used
>instead of natural=heath and natural=scrub in arid regions where there
>are
>scattered bushes.
>
>For the proposal author, I would suggest mapping some local features in
>your area which would fit the proposed definition, and then come back
>with
>photos plus aerial imagery of the areas which ought to be mapped with
>this
>tag. So far it has been mostly hypothetical, which makes it hard to
>understand which sorts of landscapes would qualify for this tag.
>
>- Joseph Eisenberg
>
>On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:58 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> > On 27. Jul 2020, at 13:41, Michael Montani 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I eventually found on-the-ground images of the feature I would like
>to
>> propose / map.
>>
>>
>> are these suggested to be represented as polygons? How would the
>border be
>> determined? I looks from the imagery as if there is a smooth
>transition of
>> these „features“ and neighbouring land which isn’t completely bare.
>Did you
>> try to map some of these and if yes, could you please post a link to
>an
>> area where a few are mapped?
>>
>> Cheers Martin
>> ___
>> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Everyone, the voting period for natural=bare_ground is still open for 4
more days.

I would recommend voting "no" on the current definition, unfortunately.

As mentioned above, the current definition is far too broad, and could
easily be construed to include areas under construction, areas of bare soil
due to use by people as a pathway or road area, and many sorts of arid and
semi-natural areas, including those that are partially covered by shrubs,
heath, grass or other sparse vegetation, or even areas of farmland that are
currently fallow.

Please see the discussion and objections on
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground

I think it is a good idea to have a way to tag bare soil which is not sand
(natural=sand) or mostly stones (natural=shingle/scree) or mud, but we need
a clear, limited definition which does not fit with human-use areas like
roads, dirt parking lots, construction sites, abandoned quarries etc, and
there needs to be more consideration about when the tag should be used
instead of natural=heath and natural=scrub in arid regions where there are
scattered bushes.

For the proposal author, I would suggest mapping some local features in
your area which would fit the proposed definition, and then come back with
photos plus aerial imagery of the areas which ought to be mapped with this
tag. So far it has been mostly hypothetical, which makes it hard to
understand which sorts of landscapes would qualify for this tag.

- Joseph Eisenberg

On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:58 AM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 27. Jul 2020, at 13:41, Michael Montani 
> wrote:
> >
> > I eventually found on-the-ground images of the feature I would like to
> propose / map.
>
>
> are these suggested to be represented as polygons? How would the border be
> determined? I looks from the imagery as if there is a smooth transition of
> these „features“ and neighbouring land which isn’t completely bare. Did you
> try to map some of these and if yes, could you please post a link to an
> area where a few are mapped?
>
> Cheers Martin
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 27. Jul 2020, at 13:41, Michael Montani  wrote:
> 
> I eventually found on-the-ground images of the feature I would like to 
> propose / map.


are these suggested to be represented as polygons? How would the border be 
determined? I looks from the imagery as if there is a smooth transition of 
these „features“ and neighbouring land which isn’t completely bare. Did you try 
to map some of these and if yes, could you please post a link to an area where 
a few are mapped?

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 24 July 2020, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> I take it that means you're not in favour of my idea of rendering all
> parts of the world not covered by a tagged area with the label "Here
> there be dragons."  I think that would be cool, especially if
> somebody comes up with a good dragon icon.

You can pick one of the following two answers:

1) We already render them in a distinct color:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/blob/master/style/style.mss

Rendering features with a distinct symbol or pattern in addition if that 
symbol does not transport any additional information is something we 
typically try to avoid.

2) There are no parts of the Earth that are not covered by a mapped area 
since the global coastline divides the Earth surface into land (on the 
left of the coastline) and ocean (on the right of the coastline).

;-)

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 at 14:50, Christoph Hormann  wrote:

> In OSM we generally think that using an open tagging system where the
> tags are narrowly defined in what the positively mean in a locally
> verifiable fashion is better for representing the global geography in
> all its diversity and to document local knowledge of people than a
> closed classification system that assigns the class with the lowest
> mismatch in a classification developed from a specific culturally
> narrow perspective to every point of the earth surface.
>

I take it that means you're not in favour of my idea of rendering all
parts of the world not covered by a tagged area with the label "Here
there be dragons."  I think that would be cool, especially if somebody
comes up with a good dragon icon.

-- 
Paull
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

[Christoph Hormann]

On Friday 24 July 2020, Michael Montani wrote:
>
> The voting for natural=bare_soil has begun and can be found
> hereing>. It will temptatively close August 7th, given enough support.

It is unfortunate that the suggestion to not aim for introducing an 
umbrella tag was not taken into account.

The proposal as is lacks clarity of what it actually suggests and how 
this new tag delienates against existing tags.  It also lacks 
comprehensive practical guidance for the mapper how to identify and 
delineate features with this tag based on real world on-the-ground 
examples.

What you essentially attempt to introduce here is a *residual* tag to 
turn the open OSM tagging system consisting of tags that positively 
identify specific real world features into a closed land cover 
classification system modeled after countless such systems (some of 
which you cited).  

In OSM we generally think that using an open tagging system where the 
tags are narrowly defined in what the positively mean in a locally 
verifiable fashion is better for representing the global geography in 
all its diversity and to document local knowledge of people than a 
closed classification system that assigns the class with the lowest 
mismatch in a classification developed from a specific culturally 
narrow perspective to every point of the earth surface.

Side note:  Measuring percentage of ground cover in an arid/semiarid 
context is usually not practically verifiable on the ground, in 
particular in areas with strong seasonality.  Examples:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Somewhere_in_Kazakhstan_(20160402_072251_1PS)_(28754128301).jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lake_turkana.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Landschaft_AnysbergPICT1454.JPG

We definitely do not want such areas to be engrossed in some 
generic 'unvegetated or sparsely vegetated area' classification.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Ground: natural=bare_soil)

[Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Ground#Tagging
is listing multiple methods to map this, what is not a good idea. 
I am confused a bit as mailing list message mentioned single value. 
Maybe it is list of considered but rejected alternatives?


Jul 24, 2020, 09:52 by michael.mont...@un.org:

> After the fruitful discussions we had in > [Tagging] Are we mapping ground on 
> OSM? 
> >  
> and > [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground) 
> >  , 
> I updated the >  wiki page for the proposal of natural=bare_soil 
> > .
>  
>  The voting for > natural=bare_soil>  has begun and can be found > here 
> > . It 
> will temptatively close > August 7th> , given enough support.
>  
>  Thanks,
>  
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>  > Michael Montani
>  > GIS Consultant> ,>  > Client Solutions Delivery Section
>  > Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
>  > United Nations Global Service Centre
>  > United Nations Department of Operational Support
>  
>  > Brindisi>  > |>  > Phone: +39 0831 056985>  > |>  > Mobile: +39 
> 3297193455>  > |>  > Intermission: 158 6985>  
> E-mail:>  > michael.monta> ni@u> n.org >  > |>  > 
> www.ungsc.org 
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging