On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 6:22 AM stevea wrote:
> I’m not positive that this is true for the entire perimeter, but
> bulldozer-cleared areas, hand-dug trenches many meters wide (to prevent a
> fire “jumping” from one side of the perimeter to the other) and usage of
> cutlines (for power cables /
On Sep 30, 2020, at 5:27 AM, Paul Allen wrote:
> BTW, ordinary polygons won't do for this. You'll need a multipolygon
> to exclude the Mount Wilson observatory and some campgrounds that
> were saved from the fires burning all around them. :)
Perhaps I have not been clear or remain
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 18:58, stevea wrote:
> This is useful because it shows not only where OSM mappers (like me) will
> need to update landcover
>
At least after the Australian fires, we still left natural=wood areas which
burned tagged that way, and in my view this is correct since they are
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 09:58, stevea wrote:
I saw someone say “six to seven years” (as what might pass for “recovery”
> to a large degree) to have “taken root” and after living most of my life
> here, that sounds about right.
It was I who said that. I don't have your personal experience, but
I don't like the tag key, because I would assume it's saying where its
electricity is coming from, the grid or a generator on premises. This is a
very intangible thing we are putting in a tag. A business is promising it's
going to have a certain kind of contract with its electricity supplier.
On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 08:09, Andrew Harvey
wrote:
>
> During Australia's fires last season, I did contemplate mapping active
> fire fronts, given I could see with my own eyes where the flames were up to
> and I could have done a more accurate job for a small area than what the
> government
Yes, I've seen exactly such signage on a number of charging stations in
my area. I did consider the generator:source-type tagging as well, and
pretty much took the possible values from there (plus adding the general
'renewable' tag), however this is something that many different types of
On Sep 30, 2020, at 2:31 AM, Sarah Hoffmann wrote:
> This is a classic case where you should set up a separate
> database to save the polygons and overlay them with OSM data.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Sarah. However… (and it’s not polygons
plural, I only entered into the map this
On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 01:55:35AM -0700, stevea wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2020, at 12:01 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> > So it seems then that what you're mapping here isn't so much the active
> > fire front, it's the burnt area given you want it to stick around after the
> > flames are out.
>
>
On Sep 30, 2020, at 12:01 AM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> So it seems then that what you're mapping here isn't so much the active fire
> front, it's the burnt area given you want it to stick around after the flames
> are out.
Neither of these two, really. Certainly not the active fire front: the
sent from a phone
> On 30. Sep 2020, at 08:30, stevea wrote:
>
> I'll say it once again: such a fire=perimeter IS a real-world "thing,"
> represented in OSM by a lightweight datum that I find to be "worth it" to be
> in the map.
+1
it is also clearly verifiable on the ground and will
For questions on ground-truth, the proposal page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/electricity:source
cites examples such as the e-bike charging station with its own solar
panels supplying the electricity
So it seems then that what you're mapping here isn't so much the active
fire front, it's the burnt area given you want it to stick around after the
flames are out.
During Australia's fires last season, I did contemplate mapping active fire
fronts, given I could see with my own eyes where the
It appears somewhat-established (in this thread) that data consumers both DO
and WILL find a datum of a polygon tagged fire=perimeter to be useful. This
might be for "remap HERE when newer imagery becomes available" purposes (to a
mapper in the area like me), to "might want to avoid hiking in
14 matches
Mail list logo
