Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
On 08/19/2015 11:30 AM, talk-us-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: Me collecting firewood makes this a forest producing timber. Full stop. If I go to the wiki page on landuse I find for landuse=forest For areas with a high density of trees primarily grown for timber. This is also what most people will associate with an area used for timber production. In the end our disagreement here is on a question of scale. For you any small and even private usage (e.g. collecting firewood) is timber production. For me I would only call it timber production if it is the primary (usually industrial) use of an area which includes cutting down trees. I am simply against tagging large areas of land based on a technicality that is not important for most people. I would rather do it the other way around compared to your proposal. Remove the default landuse=forest and only add it for areas where timber production is the primary use. Since this is to some degree a question of taste the best would probably be to get a majority vote ... ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:16 PM, stevea stevea...@softworkers.com wrote: Me collecting firewood makes this a forest producing timber. Full stop. So my backyard is a forest now? My backyard has trees, and I collect all of the downed branches and use them when I build fires in my fire pit. I really don't see how it's useful to take the definition of a forest to such an extreme. -- Jeff Ollie ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
Jeffrey Ollie replies: On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 10:16 PM, stevea mailto:stevea...@softworkers.comstevea...@softworkers.com wrote: Me collecting firewood makes this a forest producing timber. Full stop. So my backyard is a forest now? My backyard has trees, and I collect all of the downed branches and use them when I build fires in my fire pit. I really don't see how it's useful to take the definition of a forest to such an extreme. This isn't extreme. Your backyard activity is consistent with the definition of a forest: a land which is used for the production of wood/lumber/timber/firewood/pulp/et cetera. Even if this is just you or me picking up twigs and branches for a modest fire, whether your backyard (which IS your backyard, you are USING it as a forest if you do so) or our National Forests. Anybody who wonders why I act like such a stickler about this hews to the maxim of nobody likes it when someone takes something away from you (especially when, as usual, they have no right to do so). So, a brief story: Recently, an OSM volunteer in Washington state changed many California State Parks from leisure=park to leisure=nature_reserve. As the latter is a much higher classification (more protection, usually less public access or usage), this felt like a distinct taking (in the US Constitution 5th Amendment sense of the word): even if it's just OSM tagging, somebody was taking away my enjoyment to recreate in my park by tagging it something more restrictive. For a short time, we agreed to disagree, but eventually he relented and either changed these tags back to park or he let me do this, and he stopped further making such changes. While not exactly the same with landuse=forest being deprecated on USFS polygons, the analogy holds: taking away designation of this polygon as having a land use of forest feels like somebody is saying you can't collect firewood here any longer. Except, I CAN collect firewood in National Forests (unless otherwise prohibited, something I fail to see anybody bolster with any evidence to the contrary). While minor, and I agree, seeming like a small technicality, this feels like a taking (away from me, and all owners/users of our National Forests) and hence, I've legitimately got something to say about it. Again, I agree that it is fully correct going forward to use boundary=protected_area and protect_class=6 on these -- except that schema doesn't render in mapnik/Standard. (IT SURE WOULD BE NICE IF IT DID SOON!) Then, there is the very large issue of landcover=* as a tag, and IT, TOO, is not rendered in mapnik/Standard. We press ahead on these topics, though I still see only minor progress. And even a bit of drubbing (in the guise of let's take a majority vote). Can we at least have the magical/silent/invisible process of updates to mapnik rendering chime in and say yes, talk-us, it would be good if mapnik began to implement rendering of boundary=protect_class and landcover=*? Oh, those are not-especially-well-defined tags, hm, that could prevent good rendering, as the rules aren't fully established, so how can we write a renderer that implements them? Well, everybody, let's roll up our sleeves and do these. Otherwise, we will keep having the landuse=forest-on-USFS-polygons discussion over and over again forever. Or, I am all ears to listen to other proposals that will allow distinct forward momentum. SteveA California___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Arm chair mapping challenges
Yeah, I've had some problem edits from the MapBox paid editors as well not paying attention and believing that the Tiger data and Bing is pretty much 'always right'. They most of the time don't even check the history of ways before they edit and add back in stuff that another 'on-the-ground' mapper removed when a road was rerouted (and clearly mentioned this in the changeset comment). Or even take 2 seconds to see that the new 'residential' road they just added w/ a name is obviously in the wrong place when there's another road already in the OSM database with the same name less than 500 yards away and the one they're adding is smack dab right in the middle of a parking lot. Its unfortunate that someone from our team made that error and would appreciate it if you could drop a comment on the changeset to help us understand why this happened. At the scale of improvements we make, we do expect stray issues that might be accidental rather than systemic. We have been coordinating and documenting all our OSM mapping activities on our /mapping repo [1]. Its open for anyone to provide feedback on our process itself and is useful for those wanting to track our data improvement efforts. Feel free to ping me anytime on #osm if something requires immediate attention :) [1] https://github.com/mapbox/mapping/issues/100 -- Arun Ganesh (planemad) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Planemad http://j.mp/ArunGanesh ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] U turn restrictions in areas
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Anthony o...@theendput.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote: That'd have to be some super-script, aware of sightlines What would you need besides elevation information in order to be able to more or less do that? Prevailing size and locations of vehicles and vegetation along the road, since both tend to be overgrown in the western part of the state. ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests
I would like to see areas in OSM categorized as either land use, land cover (which we call natural for the most part in OSM) or administrative to clear the confusion. I am also in favor of eliminating the landuse=forest tag at least in its current incarnation and switching any official forested areas to boundary tags. I think most of us would agree that having trees across an area with few or no trees looks weird. Yes, I know - don't tag for the render, blah blah. But it seems like it would make sense if we kept wood and forest areas separate. Since natural=wood and landuse=forest virtually render the same now, they should be treated differently than they are currently. Before, portions of southern California, Arizona and Utah were lit up with their landuse=forest tags everywhere looking like massive Christmas tree farms the way they rendered. Now that wood and forest look similar, there is a smoother flow between the two but still much cleanup to do. I'd like to see most administrative boundaries be tagged with just a thicker or dashed border. Even most non city parks should not be green but should just have the same boundary=protected_area type border. An admin boundary should always be the base. The color in the map should come from the land cover in rural areas and the landuse in urban areas. This means that a national forest shouldn't have the landuse tag. We need to make it harder for people to accidentally edit an official border rather than easier. If an admin area has a landuse tag attached to it, then people who try to expand and modify it to include a surrounding forest or treed area will get confused and accidentally move the admin area by mistake. The two areas need to be separate otherwise people have to try to connect land cover areas to admin areas in order to map land areas. In any discussions about land use and land cover, we should look at what organizations have done and how they have mapped ares. For instance, in USGS imagery in JOSM you can see how they render borders with just a dashed line and let the land cover have various shades of color on top of it. The U.S. Forest Service has a distinct classification for mapping vegetation within the forest. And the USDA differentiates between use of forest land and forest cover ( http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/major-land-uses/glossary.aspx). Here is how the USGS defines land use and land cover ( http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd92_leg.php and in more depth at http://landcover.usgs.gov/pdf/anderson.pdf). Not sure how other countries map land use and land cover, but this is a sample from what the U.S. does. From http://www.ers.usda.gov/about-ers/strengthening-statistics-through-the-interagency-council-on-agricultural-rural-statistics/land-use-and-land-cover-estimates-for-the-united-states.aspx#h Land use and land cover are often related, but they have different meanings. Land use involves an element of human activity and reflects human decisions about how land will be used. Land cover refers to the vegetative characteristics or manmade constructions on the land’s surface. The site also has a good break down of how different organizations view land use and land cover. It is interesting to note how organizations view a forest. Most of the agencies listed view it as an area with trees. Forest land is broken up into deciduous and evergreen, something we might be able to incorporate into the OSM rendering eventually. I would love to see OSM reach a consensus on this long standing issue and be able to move forward and even expand the land cover definitions further to incorporate more features and make them easier to map. Thanks for reading, Nathan ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
Re: [Talk-us] Arm chair mapping challenges
On 8/18/2015 8:05 AM, James Mast wrote: Best thing to do here IMO, is to call them out the edit(s) in the changeset comment(s) area and tell them why it shouldn't have been done and hopefully they'll learn from this. I would strongly urge people to do this, for a few reasons - They should learn something - It's public, so others can learn from it and see that the user has been contacted and join in - It's searchable, so you can see if there are systematic problems with a user's edits - The first thing the Data Working Group will generally ask is if you've commented on the changesets If a user is not replying to changeset comments or is continuing to make the same mistakes over and over again after they've been pointed out, you can escalate the matter to the Data Working Group at d...@osmfoundation.org. Please include IDs of changesets with comments so we can easily find them. We can require the user to reply to changeset comments before continuing to make problem edits. This is not specific to paid editors, but can apply to any editor repeatedly making mistakes and not learning from them. Do remember, we were all new once, and all made new user mistakes once. We learn by doing and constructive criticism. It's only when someone doesn't learn or ignore comments that it's a problem. Paul Norman For the Data Working Group ___ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
