On 20/03/19 19:38, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:
Hi,
I said the its interesting also to known what there is the area without trees.
I don’t thinks that make sense to tag this as an area without trees but with a
tag that specify what there is in this area.
Then specify it in detail! Do not, for
Hi,
a. If the object of the research is just to map deforestation, you only need to
map trees. You also need 100% coverage of all tree areas. You do not need to
map "no landcover".
b. If the object is to map deforestation AND what replaces the trees, you need
to map the replacing landcovers
a. If the object of the research is just to map deforestation, you only
need to map trees. You also need 100% coverage of all tree areas. You do
not need to map "no landcover".
b. If the object is to map deforestation AND what replaces the trees, you
need to map the replacing landcovers as well,
Hi,
I said the its interesting also to known what there is the area without trees.
I don’t thinks that make sense to tag this as an area without trees but with a
tag that specify what there is in this area.
Yes I remember about the fact of the key natural.
Best,
Lorenzo
> Il giorno 20 mar
On 20/03/19 18:54, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:
Hi Giovanni,
We thinks that it also important understand if the area is without vegetation
because becomes a cultivated land, an artificial area or the trees are just
cutted for wood and so some year after they will appear again. For this reason
we
Hi Giovanni,
We thinks that it also important understand if the area is without vegetation
because becomes a cultivated land, an artificial area or the trees are just
cutted for wood and so some year after they will appear again. For this reason
we thinks that is interesting to understand also
hi,
Thanks Joseph for the answer.
The area in which I take the examples is this
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/2.3879/-73.9050 check with digital
globe premium imagery (N.B. please don’t map this area we will have and event
about mapping this area)
"landcover = trees that is a tag
Lorenzo,
if your project aims to track deforestation in a timespan, IMHO you had
better to focus on trees only. Trying to guess which landuse is going to
replace trees is hard.
I'd start from an AOI entirely mapped with forest, wood or, in doubt, the
generic landcover=trees all of which derived
Hi,
I’m answering but I’m having some problem in sending message, sorry.
Il giorno 19 mar 2019, alle ore 15:01, Paul Allen
mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> ha scritto:
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 10:00, Lorenzo Stucchi
mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>> wrote:
Remember that all the ideas are related
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 10:00, Lorenzo Stucchi
wrote:
>
> Remember that all the ideas are related to map in the Amazonian forest an
> area where nothing is mapped and the map is empty.
>
The fact that nothing has yet been mapped there is not an excuse for
inventing new tags when
other tags
> "landcover = trees that is a tag for a wood where is not clear in which class
> have to be considered the wood if natural or maintained by humans."
Almost all woodland in the world have been modified by humans, even in
the Amazon basin. I would recommend checking the existing areas of
tagged
Hi all,
Thanks for the reply and for the constructive comments, we don’t want to vote
something that no-one will accept, it's just a waste of time, for this reason,
we start before to talk with all of you.
Remember that all the ideas are related to map in the Amazonian forest an area
where
I like the project to map deforestation over time, and I think OSM can be
used. I also think OSM can profit from the data. However, as I have said
before, OSM mappers have a different viewpoint: mapping whats's there now,
as seen on the ground, as detailed as possible. And they have made a mess
of
On 19/03/19 11:27, marc marc wrote:
Le 19.03.19 à 00:25, Warin a écrit :
On 19/03/19 10:14, marc marc wrote:
Le 18.03.19 à 23:46, Warin a écrit :
landcover=artificial .. does not say what is there.
this one doesn't look wrong.
it is a category of several landcover (asphalt, concrete, ...)
Le 19.03.19 à 00:25, Warin a écrit :
> On 19/03/19 10:14, marc marc wrote:
>> Le 18.03.19 à 23:46, Warin a écrit :
>>> landcover=artificial .. does not say what is there.
>> this one doesn't look wrong.
>> it is a category of several landcover (asphalt, concrete, ...)
>
> Err the proposal is
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 23:37, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/03/19 10:26, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>
> Except I'd have said they were serious doubts, along the lines of "DON'T
> DO THAT!"
>
> But let him put it to a vote, if he wants to. It will be amusing.
>
>
> Not amusing.
>
I have
On 19/03/19 10:26, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 23:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 20:34, Lorenzo Stucchi
mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>>
wrote:
Since no more doubts were presented
I'm sorry, but
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 23:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 20:34, Lorenzo Stucchi
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Since no more doubts were presented
>>
>
> I'm sorry, but I think every post in reply to your proposal has raised
> doubts,
>
+ 1
Except I'd have said they were serious
On 19/03/19 10:14, marc marc wrote:
Le 18.03.19 à 23:46, Warin a écrit :
landcover=artificial .. does not say what is there.
this one doesn't look wrong.
it is a category of several landcover (asphalt, concrete, ...)
Err the proposal is landcover=artificial for areas that are mining areas
On 18/03/2019 23:17, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 20:34, Lorenzo Stucchi
mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>> wrote:
Hi all,
Since no more doubts were presented
I'm sorry, but I think every post in reply to your proposal has raised
doubts, primarily pointing
On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 09:15, marc marc wrote:
>
> this one doesn't look wrong.
> it is a category of several landcover (asphalt, concrete, ...)
>
Plus residential / commercial / industrial areas, highways / roads of any
sort, railways etc etc.
Would definitely make for much easier mapping to
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 20:34, Lorenzo Stucchi
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Since no more doubts were presented
>
I'm sorry, but I think every post in reply to your proposal has raised
doubts, primarily pointing out that you're creating new tags rather than
using existing ones, apparently to make it
Le 18.03.19 à 23:46, Warin a écrit :
> landcover=artificial .. does not say what is there.
this one doesn't look wrong.
it is a category of several landcover (asphalt, concrete, ...)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
On 18/03/19 21:32, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:
Hi all,
Since no more doubts were presented we can think to propose this tag.
Should be better to have 4 different tag proposal one for every
different landcover, one just one considering that are all connected
and there are just the key landcover
Hi all,
Since no more doubts were presented we can think to propose this tag.
Should be better to have 4 different tag proposal one for every different
landcover, one just one considering that are all connected and there are just
the key landcover and 4 different value.
Which idea is the best
25 matches
Mail list logo
