Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:05 AM, Mattias Dalkvist wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Michael Patrick > wrote: > >> >> My guess is the permits for future operations are online also. Such an >> inventory is is a non-trivial task >>

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

Just because a tract of land is being used for forestry doesn't mean it won't have streams on it, and low spots may have ponds. On April 10, 2017 2:36:20 PM Kevin Kenny wrote: On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:49 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > landuse =forest. areas used to grow and log trees (actual current human > use of land), a pond would not be included but a clearcut area still > dedicated to growing trees would. > In beaver country, there's

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

sent from a phone > On 10. Apr 2017, at 07:17, Clifford Snow wrote: > > Any suggestions on how we should be mapping forested areas would be > appreciated. my suggestion is to map the following 3 aspects (not necessarily in the same osm feature, but orthogonally,

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

I think this is a great solution. It is not possible to over-estimate the amount of work and skill involved in classification of imagery from any source. It is great for the OSM community to think that we can map the streets of the world, it is a different matter to map vegetation types. Emmor

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Michael Patrick wrote: > > Have you considered using landsat-8 or sentinel-2 to get current landcover >> using the QGIS plugin Semi-Automatic Classification? Landviewer [1] has a >> nice interface for finding imagery that is cloud free and of

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

> Have you considered using landsat-8 or sentinel-2 to get current landcover > using the QGIS plugin Semi-Automatic Classification? Landviewer [1] has a > nice interface for finding imagery that is cloud free and of recent > vintage? The learning curve to landcover classification is a bit steep,

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

Landcover=wood (or the presently OSM popular 'natural=wood')applies to trees of all types, ages, planting densities and heights. So there are some sub tags that can be used under that land cover. Harvesting operations are a function of land use (forestry or farm) and could be a sub tag under

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

Clifford, You are correct, landuse is different from landcover. I assume you are tagging farmland as landuse, not landcover. The problem with landcover is that the currency and consistency of the source information is critical and is very difficult in OSM. The OSM tagging for landcover should

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Vao Matua wrote: > This is an interesting discussion. As a tree farmer and professional > forester I am offended by the suggestion that a harvested area is different > landuse from areas that are in other stages of forest growth. > I

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

This is an interesting discussion. As a tree farmer and professional forester I am offended by the suggestion that a harvested area is different landuse from areas that are in other stages of forest growth. I understand the need to avoid current logging operations, but I would say that crowd

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 3:06 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would also like to know when a harvest is planed, so I can avoid the > area when that is taking place (traffic, noise and dust). > > Where an area has been clear felled, replanted and is now thick.. they > usually do a

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

On 09-Apr-17 08:13 PM, Mattias Dalkvist wrote: I should describe my use case a bit more: When hiking and planing a hike (in Scandinavian forests) it is very useful to know/see where the clearing (from clearcutting) are. Resent ones have lost of wet tracks from the harvesters but also areas

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 11:41 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > There was a longer discussion about this topic in January this year > already: > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/thread.html > > I think the conclusion was to keep landuse=forest and the

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

On 08-Apr-17 04:42 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 7. Apr 2017, at 23:41, Tom Pfeifer wrote: I think the conclusion was to keep landuse=forest and the dicussion forked into subtagging of crops. you can distinguish different states also with

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

sent from a phone > On 7. Apr 2017, at 23:41, Tom Pfeifer wrote: > > I think the conclusion was to keep landuse=forest and the dicussion forked > into subtagging of crops. you can distinguish different states also with "landcover" cheers, Martin

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

There was a longer discussion about this topic in January this year already: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-January/thread.html I think the conclusion was to keep landuse=forest and the dicussion forked into subtagging of crops. On 07.04.2017 20:56, Mattias Dalkvist

Re: [Tagging] Forestry/logging

On 08-Apr-17 04:56 AM, Mattias Dalkvist wrote: Hi What are the options for tagging forest areas that have been harvested/clear cut? Searching the wiki I found: landuse=logging many with logging=clearcutting or logging=selective_cutting or logging:start_date=* 18k uses mostly Eastern

[Tagging] Forestry/logging

Hi What are the options for tagging forest areas that have been harvested/clear cut? Searching the wiki I found: landuse=logging many with logging=clearcutting or logging=selective_cutting or logging:start_date=* 18k uses mostly Eastern Europe and Russia man_made=clearcut almost all with