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
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
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
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
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 5:11 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We don't mapped parked vehicles unless they are 'permanent', same should
> be adopted for fires, floods, earth quakes and volcanic eruptions.
>
> If there is no permanent effect then mapping it is at best a temporary
> thing.
On Tue, 29 Sep 2020 at 10:11, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Of what use is the data to mappers and/or data consumers?
>
> For mappers it may help to know what areas require remapping (buildings
> etc).
>
> Data consumers? I would think the local authorities already have the fire
> area
On 27/9/20 5:51 pm, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
I am a bit dubious about value of updating fire=perimeter
It is something that changes extremely quickly, we should
not encourage people to survey perimeter of ACTIVE fire,
OSM is doomed to be strictly worse source of fire perimeter
than
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 3:30 PM Yves wrote:
>
>
> Le 27 septembre 2020 21:43:31 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson <
> pelder...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> >The idea that natural=wood is for natural woods and landuse=forest is for
> >managed forests has too little practical support.
>
> Yet, this is one of
Le 27 septembre 2020 21:43:31 GMT+02:00, Peter Elderson a
écrit :
>The idea that natural=wood is for natural woods and landuse=forest is for
>managed forests has too little practical support.
Yet, this is one of the first thing I learn in my early days in OSM.
Yves
On Sep 27, 2020, at 12:43 PM, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Clifford Snow :
> I'm not sure there would be a consensus agreement to revise the wiki to
> indicate landuse=forest should be used for timber production. Thoughts?
>
> I am sure there would not. landuse=forest just means the area has trees.
Clifford Snow :
> I'm not sure there would be a consensus agreement to revise the wiki to
> indicate landuse=forest should be used for timber production. Thoughts?
>
I am sure there would not. landuse=forest just means the area has trees. I
think there is some consensus about that.
On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 18:39, Clifford Snow wrote:
>
> I'm not sure there would be a consensus agreement to revise the wiki to
> indicate landuse=forest should be used for timber production. Thoughts?
>
>From the last seven or eight times this has come up in the past couple of
years...
1)
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 7:24 AM Clifford Snow
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:46 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used
>>
>
> I don't believe everyone around here will agree
On Sun, Sep 27, 2020 at 12:46 AM Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used
>
I don't believe everyone around here will agree with that interpretation.
I live in an area with significant logging.
On Sep 27, 2020, at 12:51 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:
> I am a bit dubious about value of updating fire=perimeter
It isn't anticipated to be "updated." It is a static boundary where "inside of
this polygon, there might be burned / destroyed landcover (and perhaps some
buildings,
On Sep 27, 2020, at 12:45 AM, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:
> landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used
>
> It is also basically universally interpreted this way by various data
> consumers.
Mateusz, I do not disagree with you to simply disagree:
I am a bit dubious about value of updating fire=perimeter
It is something that changes extremely quickly, we should
not encourage people to survey perimeter of ACTIVE fire,
OSM is doomed to be strictly worse source of fire perimeter
than alternative sources
> fire has absolutely enormous
landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area, not for how land is used
It is also basically universally interpreted this way by various data consumers.
Sep 25, 2020, 00:05 by cliff...@snowandsnow.us:
> Steve,
> Just a reminder, landuse is to tag what the land is used for. landuse=forest
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
