Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes

[osm.tagging]

From: Paul Johnson  
Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2018 08:00
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes

 

So how is this different from placement=transition, then? 

 

 

 

placement=* defines the relation between the position of the way that defines 
that is used to specify the position of the road to the lanes.

 

Without a placement tag, the assumption is always that the way is in the exact 
centre the total width of all lanes.

 

with values like left_of:1, right_of:2, middle_of:3 you can specify that the 
way is at the left, right, or middle of a specific lane (lanes always counted 
from left to right, and matching the lanes defined in the :lanes suffix tags, 
not the lanes=x “full-width motorized” lanes.

 

You can see the effect of that in this screenshot from JOSM with the “lane and 
road attributes” mapstyle active:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/f18xbtvdcjg8syo/1520437709804.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o5mgkj7bdmwe6rx/1523175198420.jpg?dl=0

 

Where possible, I’ve simply kept the ways following a specific on the ground 
lane, even when lanes are added and removed, by using that appropriate 
placement=* values. Otherwise, to be absolutely correct, the way would have had 
to wiggle left and right every time a lane is added or removed for a short 
section to keep the position of the way in the centre of the total width of all 
lanes.

 

placement=transition indicates that the way is not actually in a fixed position 
to the lanes for this segment. This is required at places where ways split or 
merge because we are using lines (the ways) to define the position of areas 
(the actual road surface).

 

For a concrete example, see (from the 2nd screenshot, motorway_link coming up 
in the bottom right corner): https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/577734615

 

At that point, it has 4 lanes, these lanes split into two 2 lane ways. For the 
short section where the split takes place, it’s impossible to define a correct 
placement value, as the way for the 4 lane section is in the middle of the 4 
lanes, while the way for the later 2 lane sections is also in the middle of 
each.

 

So for the two small sections where the way is not actually correctly 
positioned, you specify placement=transition, to basically tell the data 
consumer “you’ll have to figure this out based on how the lanes connect”:

 

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/577672034

https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/577672029

 

transit:lanes on the other hand defines how the lanes connect from one way to 
another. While this information can, partially, in some cases, with some 
guessing, be derived by analysing the placement, and :lanes tags,  it’s much 
easier if the information is directly defined. 

 

It essential defines “if you are currently in a specific lane of way A and you 
go from way A to way B, what lane of way B will you be on without having to 
change lanes (crossing a lane dividing road marking)”. 

 

Cases where it’s definitely impossible to determine that from placement and 
other :lanes tags is the difference between a new lane being added (so you have 
to change lanes to get into it) and a lane forking (the lane gets wide enough 
to be two lanes, then a new dividing line is starting in the middle, you can 
essentially arrive at either of the two new lanes without changing lanes). As 
well as the same in reverse, a lane merging (the lane ends, you have to cross a 
dividing line to get out of it) or two lanes joining (the lane dividing road 
marking simply stops, going from two lanes to one double width lane, which then 
shrinks to normal lane width, in which case from both original lanes you will 
end up in the new lane without crossing a lane divider).

 

Take for a simple general example this way (also from the 2nd screenshot): 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/577734617

 

A motorway_link splits off: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/577671984 while 
the way itself continues: https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/577671983

 

The lane connectivity from that first way to the two splitting ways is defined 
in two transit relations:

 

For the slipway: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8189793

transit:lanes=continue|leave|leave

because it’s a :lanes suffix key, the number of | separated values must match 
the number of lanes defined in the other :lanes keys on the from way.

The value tells you that the left-most lane of the “from” way continues to the 
left-most (only in this case) lane of the to way. While the two lanes on the 
right do not connect to the “to” way at all (they go to some other way).

 

And for the through road: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/8189792

transit:lanes=leave|continue|continue

The value tells you that the left-most lane leaves to some other way, while the 
middle lane connects to the left-most lane of the “to” way and the right-most 
lane connects to the 2nd (and right-most) lane of the “to” way.

 

 

Another exa

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 13/06/18 23:01, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:00 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:


On 13/06/18 19:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

2018-06-13 11:44 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>:

13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com
:

2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>:

Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag
(rarely done for obvious reasons) and

what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is
owned by the public or privately owned?


Complicated and boring to survey, limited usefulness of this
information.


the usefulness of knowing the land ownership depends on the
jurisdiction.



The amount of time and effort in obtaining the information may be
beyond the mappers tolerance.
The may want to map other things with that time that they see as
much more important and usefull to them.
If the name ends with "State Forest" you know who operates it, it
is ultimately the State Government .

Access to state owned forestry areas is normally public.
Closed or at least restricted when logging or there is a special
event on - like a car rally.
These things are generally understood, infrequent and so not
normally mapped. These exceptions are what OSM does not cater for
well.


Yes.

I don't do a lot of landcover mapping, because I render my own maps 
with third-party landcover data. I do landcover for detail mapping in 
my own neighbourhood, for producing large-scale trail maps of specific 
small areas, or to override trouble spots in the third-party 
database.willing o


For landuse mapping, what chiefly concerns me is recreational 
opportunities.


To this end, I maintain a few imports of public lands in New York 
State, as well as mapping various public-access lands that are in 
private hands. I do try to map access in places where it's 
complicated. Some of these lands are managed for forestry - and I have 
no tag available to indicate this. Neither 'natural=wood' nor 
'landuse=forest' appear to mean anything more than 'shade this area 
green on the map, and draw trees on it.'


If this discussion reaches some sort of rough consensus, I'm certainly 
willing to do mechanical edits updating the few thousand areas that I 
imported. (Mechanical edits to correct systematic errors in imported 
data are, as I understand it, acceptable.) I'm not very happy with the 
use of those imports as evidence of 'this is tagging practice' - the 
current import is more 'least worst' tagging that will remain 
consistent with current rendering and with imports in neighbouring 
states. I'm NOT willing to retag with mechanical edits if the price of 
the retagging will be that the State Forests, Wildlife Management 
Areas, Watershed Recreation Areas, and so on will disappear from the 
main map.


What I want:

Showing that land is treed ('natural=wood' or the proposed 
'landcover=trees') is easy enough. 'landuse=forest' appears to be 
synonymous with both 'natural=wood' and 'landcover=trees' and so isn't 
useful to me, although I've tried consistently to use it to indicate 
designated land use and not landcover. The result has been rendering 
gaffes where trees are overlaid on water - but they don't bother me 
excessively, since most of those ponds will have trees again in a few 
decades, as human and beaver remodeling of the land shifts elsewhere.


'landuse=forest' to designate landcover is unworkable. As Warin said 
in an earlier post, a piece of land has one use. (I oversimplify; land 
may have secondary uses, for example, land managed for forestry with 
public recreation as a secondary objective, but NEITHER of those 
implies that a particular square metre is or is not tree-covered.) An 
object like https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/175474 is an 
example. The land USE is, correctly, military - the land is used, for 
instance, for live fire exercises. The land COVER for large parts of 
the Academy is trees - what an ecologist would call 'temperate mixed 
forest'.


That treed land cover is contiguous with Bear Mountain/Harriman State 
Park (which should be boundary=national_park, but that's a different 
argument), Black Rock Forest (private land open to public outside 
certain seasons), Storm King State Park (managed, effectively, as 
leisure=nature_reserve), Storm King Art Center (amenity=museum - an 
outdoor sculpture gallery in a partly-wooded setting), and various 
private holdings (where I'm not trying to tag land use).


So, what I'm after is: some tag that I can use for something like the 
International Paper tract in the Adirondacks (not mapped because (a) I 
haven't got to it, and (b) the tagging would be just too 
controversial). It is owned by a private common-stock co

[Tagging] maxweight=* specified for different axle counts

[David Wang]

What is the best way to specify the maximum weight when a sign specifies 
different weights for different axle counts?




The situation in question is here:

https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/VMM_wbgzcm1jFm_APKhQww




For those who cannot see the image, the sign says

: WEIGHT LIMIT

: 2 axle - 10 tons

: 3 axle - 16 tons

: 4 axle + - 17 tons

(“tons” in this case means “short tons”, as it is in the US)




I went through the Tagging list archives and found a thread from Dec 2015/Jan 
2016, with the subject “Specifying maxweight, when different weight limits are 
signed” (starting here: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-December/027931.html and 
here: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-January/027975.html)


My problem is that placing “maxweight=10 st” and “maxweight=17 st” are both not 
true to the information on the ground, plus info is lost. 


One solution proposed in the above thread is to find the weight borne per axle 
and then use the most restrictive weight, as in (17 st)/(4 axles)=4.25 st/axle, 
tagged as “maxaxleload=4.25 st”. Unfortunately, the last is 4+ axles, meaning 
that with multiple axles, the maximum load per axle goes to zero, so this does 
not work. 


Another solution was to use the access keys as suffixes on the maxweight key, 
as in “maxweight:hgv” and “maxweight:bus”, to specify the maximum weight. 
However, I find this solution clunky. It also doesn’t address the fact that 
some vehicles can have different axle counts, for example an HGV can have 
anywhere from two to five axles. 


I feel this situation might need a new suffix at the very least 
(“maxweight:axles:#=*” ?), but it’s definitely up to comment.


Thanks,

David___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Jun 2018, at 13:18, Anton Klim  wrote:
> 
> Thanks Martin. I feel like this is a separate, but generally more 
> wide-ranging proposal considering the scale of facilities it potentially 
> covers.



yes, I set this up because we discovered here it was missing and you said you 
weren’t interested in providing a proposal, but it does not necessarily 
conflict with lounges, which are more like a restaurant.

cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes

[Paul Johnson]

So how is this different from placement=transition, then?

On Jun 13, 2018 01:04,  wrote:

No you don’t.



transit:lanes describes how the lanes from the end of one way connect to
the end of another way in the direction of traffic flow.



For each pair of from/to ways, there is going to be exactly one node where
they connect. That is your via node.



*From:* Paul Johnson 
*Sent:* Wednesday, 13 June 2018 08:46
*To:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 

*Subject:* Re: [Tagging] I can't support transit:lanes



You'd have more than one via way for the transit:lanes relation.



On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 01:11 Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:


11. Jun 2018 23:02 by ba...@ursamundi.org:

On Sun, Jun 10, 2018, 23:43 Bryan Housel  wrote:

The only way I’ll be able to support lane transitions would be as a
relation that has similar semantics to turn restrictions.. from/via/to.
Keep it simple (no multi via ways please).  This is already an understood
way of tagging things that connect 2 ways.



Driveway in the middle of a lane transition with turn restrictions.  What
now?



No problem? Why it would be an issue?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC: amenity=waiting_room and amenity=waiting_area

[osm.tagging]

I would go for waiting_room=yes/no

 

And if we have waiting_room=foo/bar subtypes (no idea what subtypes there may 
be) for amenity=waiting_room in the future, then this naturally also applies to 
waiting_room tags on other features with any value other than no implying that 
there is a waiting room.

 

So you could have on its own node:

amenity=waiting_room

waiting_room=foo

 

or:

amenity=doctors

waiting_room=foo (implies waiting_room=yes)

 

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer  
Sent: Wednesday, 13 June 2018 22:30
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] RFC: amenity=waiting_room and amenity=waiting_area

 

I had forgotten to name the property for things that provide a waiting room. 
Current proposal is "has_waiting_room" (it is less ambiguous than 
"waiting_room=*" which might also be used for subtypes, but it isn't how we 
usually operate). Please comment on this as well (same for the waiting area).

 

Cheers,

Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 8:00 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13/06/18 19:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2018-06-13 11:44 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>> 13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>>
>> 2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>>
>>> Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag (rarely done for
>>> obvious reasons) and
>>>
>> what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is owned by the public
>> or privately owned?
>>
>>
>> Complicated and boring to survey, limited usefulness of this information.
>>
>
> the usefulness of knowing the land ownership depends on the jurisdiction.
>
>
> The amount of time and effort in obtaining the information may be beyond
> the mappers tolerance.
> The may want to map other things with that time that they see as much more
> important and usefull to them.
> If the name ends with "State Forest" you know who operates it, it is
> ultimately the State Government .
>
> Access to state owned forestry areas is normally public.
> Closed or at least restricted when logging or there is a special event on
> - like a car rally.
> These things are generally understood, infrequent and so not normally
> mapped. These exceptions are what OSM does not cater for well.
>

Yes.

I don't do a lot of landcover mapping, because I render my own maps with
third-party landcover data. I do landcover for detail mapping in my own
neighbourhood, for producing large-scale trail maps of specific small
areas, or to override trouble spots in the third-party database.willing o

For landuse mapping, what chiefly concerns me is recreational opportunities.

To this end, I maintain a few imports of public lands in New York State, as
well as mapping various public-access lands that are in private hands. I do
try to map access in places where it's complicated. Some of these lands are
managed for forestry - and I have no tag available to indicate this.
Neither 'natural=wood' nor 'landuse=forest' appear to mean anything more
than 'shade this area green on the map, and draw trees on it.'

If this discussion reaches some sort of rough consensus, I'm certainly
willing to do mechanical edits updating the few thousand areas that I
imported. (Mechanical edits to correct systematic errors in imported data
are, as I understand it, acceptable.) I'm not very happy with the use of
those imports as evidence of 'this is tagging practice' - the current
import is more 'least worst' tagging that will remain consistent with
current rendering and with imports in neighbouring states. I'm NOT willing
to retag with mechanical edits if the price of the retagging will be that
the State Forests, Wildlife Management Areas, Watershed Recreation Areas,
and so on will disappear from the main map.

What I want:

Showing that land is treed ('natural=wood' or the proposed
'landcover=trees') is easy enough. 'landuse=forest' appears to be
synonymous with both 'natural=wood' and 'landcover=trees' and so isn't
useful to me, although I've tried consistently to use it to indicate
designated land use and not landcover. The result has been rendering gaffes
where trees are overlaid on water - but they don't bother me excessively,
since most of those ponds will have trees again in a few decades, as human
and beaver remodeling of the land shifts elsewhere.

'landuse=forest' to designate landcover is unworkable. As Warin said in an
earlier post, a piece of land has one use. (I oversimplify; land may have
secondary uses, for example, land managed for forestry with public
recreation as a secondary objective, but NEITHER of those implies that a
particular square metre is or is not tree-covered.) An object like
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/175474 is an example. The land USE
is, correctly, military - the land is used, for instance, for live fire
exercises. The land COVER for large parts of the Academy is trees - what an
ecologist would call 'temperate mixed forest'.

That treed land cover is contiguous with Bear Mountain/Harriman State Park
(which should be boundary=national_park, but that's a different argument),
Black Rock Forest (private land open to public outside certain seasons),
Storm King State Park (managed, effectively, as leisure=nature_reserve),
Storm King Art Center (amenity=museum - an outdoor sculpture gallery in a
partly-wooded setting), and various private holdings (where I'm not trying
to tag land use).

So, what I'm after is: some tag that I can use for something like the
International Paper tract in the Adirondacks (not mapped because (a) I
haven't got to it, and (b) the tagging would be just too controversial). It
is owned by a private common-stock corporation. It is managed to grow trees
for paper (as you might imagine). It is ordinarily open to the public to
hike, ski, snowshoe, and so on except in areas where active logging or
reforestation is in progress. Several public trails traverse it. It is not
a nature reserve of any sort. It is private forest land. (I oversimplify;

Re: [Tagging] RFC: amenity=waiting_room and amenity=waiting_area

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I had forgotten to name the property for things that provide a waiting
room. Current proposal is "has_waiting_room" (it is less ambiguous than
"waiting_room=*" which might also be used for subtypes, but it isn't how we
usually operate). Please comment on this as well (same for the waiting
area).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 12:59 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

>
> https://www.klonblog.com/architektur-ein-schickes-und-
> gemuetliches-haus-im-wald/
>
>
> I see no images, also after disabling ad blocker.
>
>

a pity, because it seems they have even a tree growing through the house



>
>
> https://www.ecowoman.de/images/stories/Natur_und_Umwelt/Le%20vents%20de%
> 20forets%201%20678.jpg
>
> I see no landuse=residential here (though there is building=residential).
>


sorry?



>
>
> https://pictures.immobilienscout24.de/listings/1ddb81ae-d508-4159-ba88-
> 7d0dda53e696-1130797434.jpg/ORIG/resize/1024x768%3E/format/jpg/quality/80
>
> This may qualify, though it is debatable.
>
>
>

yes, everything is debatable.



> Overall, I think that this situation is really rare.
>


yes, it is rare, but as we are mapping the whole world, it is sure that we
will encounter it.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have set up 2 new proposals for waiting facilities, waiting room and
> waiting area.
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_area
> and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_room
>

+1
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 13/06/18 19:48, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2018-06-13 11:44 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny >:


13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com
:

2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>:

Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag
(rarely done for obvious reasons) and

what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is owned by
the public or privately owned?


Complicated and boring to survey, limited usefulness of this
information.


the usefulness of knowing the land ownership depends on the jurisdiction.



The amount of time and effort in obtaining the information may be beyond 
the mappers tolerance.
The may want to map other things with that time that they see as much 
more important and usefull to them.
If the name ends with "State Forest" you know who operates it, it is 
ultimately the State Government .


Access to state owned forestry areas is normally public.
Closed or at least restricted when logging or there is a special event 
on - like a car rally.
These things are generally understood, infrequent and so not normally 
mapped. These exceptions are what OSM does not cater for well.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] RFC: amenity=waiting_room and amenity=waiting_area

[osm.tagging]

These both look pretty straight forward. I don’t see anything objectionable at 
first glance.

 

It might be interesting to explore how these interact with 
public_transport=platform. (e.g. train station, you got the platform edge, and 
behind that you have benches or individual seats along most of the platform, 
does the qualify as a waiting area? What about if there are no benches/chairs, 
is it still a waiting area?)

 

It might also be interesting to explore how you can indicate, beyond just being 
near it, what (separately mapped) service/event/thing you are waiting for at 
that area.

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer  
Sent: Wednesday, 13 June 2018 20:45
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: [Tagging] RFC: amenity=waiting_room and amenity=waiting_area

 

I am asking for your comments on 

amenity=waiting_room 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_room

 

and 

amenity=waiting_area

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_area

 

 

Please preferably comment on the discussion pages of the proposals.

 

Thank you,

Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

[Anton Klim]

Well, certainly, tags are abused all the times, especially when people can't 
find what they want in the editor. This is not the reason I'm thinking of 
changing the proposed tag to something already proposed here, like 
airport_lounge, transport_lounge or waiting_lounge (this might be a bit too 
close to Martin's proposal).
Comments on this are most welcome. 

Anton

12.06.2018, в 13:51, Paul Allen  написал(а):

> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:20 AM, Anton Klim  wrote:
>> 
>> Hence why I set out with just amenity=lounge, not realising how many 
>> conflicting meanings people assign to the word, which is why it probably 
>> won't work.
> 
> I know you have already said you think a waiting room is different from your 
> proposal for a lounge and you're not
> interested (at the moment) in tagging for waiting rooms.  However, I can 
> foresee that unless there is
> amenity=waiting_room (or whatever we settle upon) then people WILL abuse 
> amenity=lounge (or whatever we
> settle upon) for waiting rooms.  Most of them won't deliberately intend to 
> abuse the tag, they'll just be
> going for the closest fit to what they're trying to map.  They probably won't 
> look at the wiki page telling them
> it's not for that purpose, it will be what the editor pops up in response to 
> what they're asking for.
> 
> A good rule of thumb: if the mailing list has as many conflicting 
> interpretations/opinions over a tag as this one
> has, it's likely to end up being used incorrectly in practise.  And then, a 
> few years down the line, we'll be looking
> for tagging to replace it.
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

Would this qualify?
https://www.google.nl/maps/place/Veluwe/@52.2191306,5.8688533,1379m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47c7c9d88ad308b5:0x3d1880bfd62acc1f!8m2!3d52.2387683!4d5.8322737

2018-06-13 12:59 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 13. Jun 2018 11:58 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> 2018-06-13 11:49 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>>
>> Can you give an example photo of something that would be correctly  tagged
>>
>> landuse=residential and is in "true" forest?
>>
>
> https://www.klett.de/sixcms/media.php/klett72.a.427.de/
> upload/orang_asli_dorf.jpg
>
>
> I see landuse=residential (or =farmyard) within landuse=forest with no
> overlap.
>
>
>
> https://alleideen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/kleineres-Haus-vorteile-
> exterior-wald-470x390.jpg
>
>
> To cropped to say anything.
>
>
> https://d2gg9evh47fn9z.cloudfront.net/800px_COLOURBOX2241126.jpg
>
>
> Looks like landuse=residential within landuse=forest with no overlap,
>
> but it is strongly cropped.
>
>
>
> https://www.klonblog.com/architektur-ein-schickes-und-
> gemuetliches-haus-im-wald/
>
>
> I see no images, also after disabling ad blocker.
>
>
>
> https://www.ecowoman.de/images/stories/Natur_und_Umwelt/Le%20vents%20de%
> 20forets%201%20678.jpg
>
>
> I see no landuse=residential here (though there is building=residential).
>
>
>
> https://pictures.immobilienscout24.de/listings/1ddb81ae-d508-4159-ba88-
> 7d0dda53e696-1130797434.jpg/ORIG/resize/1024x768%3E/format/jpg/quality/80
>
>
> This may qualify, though it is debatable.
>
>
> Overall, I think that this situation is really rare.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

[Anton Klim]

Thanks Martin. I feel like this is a separate, but generally more wide-ranging 
proposal considering the scale of facilities it potentially covers. 

Anton

13.06.2018, в 13:43, Martin Koppenhoefer  написал(а):

> I have set up 2 new proposals for waiting facilities, waiting room and 
> waiting area.
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_area
> and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_room
> 
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 11:58 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :


> 2018-06-13 11:49 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > >:
>
>>   
>>
>> Can you give an example photo of something that would be correctly  tagged
>>
>> landuse=residential and is in "true" forest?
>>
>>   
>
> https://www.klett.de/sixcms/media.php/klett72.a.427.de/upload/orang_asli_dorf.jpg
>  
> 




I see landuse=residential (or =farmyard) within landuse=forest with no overlap.


 

> https://alleideen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/kleineres-Haus-vorteile-exterior-wald-470x390.jpg
>  
> 




To cropped to say anything.

 


> https://d2gg9evh47fn9z.cloudfront.net/800px_COLOURBOX2241126.jpg 
> 




Looks like landuse=residential within landuse=forest with no overlap,

but it is strongly cropped.

 

> https://www.klonblog.com/architektur-ein-schickes-und-gemuetliches-haus-im-wald/
>  
> 




I see no images, also after disabling ad blocker.


 

> https://www.ecowoman.de/images/stories/Natur_und_Umwelt/Le%20vents%20de%20forets%201%20678.jpg
>  
> 




I see no landuse=residential here (though there is building=residential).


 

> https://pictures.immobilienscout24.de/listings/1ddb81ae-d508-4159-ba88-7d0dda53e696-1130797434.jpg/ORIG/resize/1024x768%3E/format/jpg/quality/80
>  
> 




This may qualify, though it is debatable.




Overall, I think that this situation is really rare.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] RFC: amenity=waiting_room and amenity=waiting_area

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I am asking for your comments on
amenity=waiting_room
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_room

and
amenity=waiting_area
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_area


Please preferably comment on the discussion pages of the proposals.

Thank you,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

I have set up 2 new proposals for waiting facilities, waiting room and
waiting area.
See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_area
and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/waiting_room

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[osm.tagging]

From: Mateusz Konieczny  
Sent: Wednesday, 13 June 2018 19:49
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Cc: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

 

13. Jun 2018 11:36 by marc.ge...@gmail.com  :

And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any place 
where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*.

And that is why landuse=grass is used to map landcover - not land use.

 

https://i.chzbgr.com/full/9175618304/hD5996842/

 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

and from "maintained or managed woodland", to any group of trees,
because after all, trees on a community square, in a park and in a
garden are managed as well. At least that is an argument I have heard
before.
As soon as you start representing trees in a garden as landuse=forest
only because the trees are maintained, don't you drop the woodland
part (and thus landuse) and start using the tag as a landcover ?
Aren't you mapping for the renderer then ?

m
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 12:18 PM Christoph Hormann  wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 13 June 2018, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > > And landuse=forest is used for landcover, not landuse, so such
> > > mapping is correct.
> >
> > As I see it, it evolved from mapping areas where wood is used for
> > timber into a landcover tag. The first person that used it for
> > landcover purpose have mapped for the renderer imho. Others followed
> > and now people state it is a landcover tag.
>
> Not really following the overall discussion here any more but trying to
> scuttle the attempt at rewriting history:
>
> The early use of landuse=forest/natural=wood was more or less like
> Approach 3 on
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest
>
> See:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landuse%3Dforest&oldid=200189
>
> in particular the section 'Attention'.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 13 June 2018, Marc Gemis wrote:
> > And landuse=forest is used for landcover, not landuse, so such
> > mapping is correct.
>
> As I see it, it evolved from mapping areas where wood is used for
> timber into a landcover tag. The first person that used it for
> landcover purpose have mapped for the renderer imho. Others followed
> and now people state it is a landcover tag.

Not really following the overall discussion here any more but trying to 
scuttle the attempt at rewriting history:

The early use of landuse=forest/natural=wood was more or less like 
Approach 3 on

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest

See:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landuse%3Dforest&oldid=200189

in particular the section 'Attention'.  

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

landcover=* has reached a significant usage despite not being rendered on
OSM Carto, nor supported by tools.  It does not require big changes to
existing data or schemes to add rendering of landcover=trees|scrub|grass.
Technically I have not seen any problems to render this, particularly since
it's not new rendering, it's using existing rendering.

I would suggest, for now, just to start rendering of the existing landcover
tagging, without any other change to schemes, principals or whatever. There
is no conflict with exiating usage and schemes, just an extra.

If it doesn't take hold, so be it. But I think the signs are there that it
fulfils a widely (though not universally) felt wish and will help to reduce
controversy about the logic of tagging wood and grass. If so, we will see a
steady increase in usage of landcover tagging and a gradual decrease in
non-natural naturals and non-landuse landuses.


2018-06-13 11:51 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

> >
> > And landuse=forest is used for landcover, not landuse, so such mapping
> is correct.
>
> As I see it, it evolved from mapping areas where wood is used for
> timber into a landcover tag. The first person that used it for
> landcover purpose have mapped for the renderer imho. Others followed
> and now people state it is a landcover tag.
>
> m.
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 11:52 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 13. Jun 2018 11:24 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> What about the distinction "forest" and "wood"? Is a wood smaller and a
> forest denser?
>
>
> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest for the current situation,
> adding one more
>
> contradictory tagging scheme is not going to help.
>

this was not meant to be about landuse=forest and natural=wood, it was
about the meaning of the English terms "wood" and "forest". There is not
contradiction.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 11:49 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 13. Jun 2018 11:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> 2018-06-13 11:42 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>>
>> I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not
>> help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster.
>>
>> Exclude landuse=residential areas.
>>
>
> there are residential plots in actual, "true" forests though.
>
>
> Can you give an example photo of something that would be correctly  tagged
>
> landuse=residential and is in "true" forest?
>

https://www.klett.de/sixcms/media.php/klett72.a.427.de/upload/orang_asli_dorf.jpg
https://alleideen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/kleineres-Haus-vorteile-exterior-wald-470x390.jpg
https://d2gg9evh47fn9z.cloudfront.net/800px_COLOURBOX2241126.jpg
https://www.klonblog.com/architektur-ein-schickes-und-gemuetliches-haus-im-wald/
https://www.ecowoman.de/images/stories/Natur_und_Umwelt/Le%20vents%20de%20forets%201%20678.jpg
https://pictures.immobilienscout24.de/listings/1ddb81ae-d508-4159-ba88-7d0dda53e696-1130797434.jpg/ORIG/resize/1024x768%3E/format/jpg/quality/80
etc.etc.
there are thousands...

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

>
> And landuse=forest is used for landcover, not landuse, so such mapping is 
> correct.

As I see it, it evolved from mapping areas where wood is used for
timber into a landcover tag. The first person that used it for
landcover purpose have mapped for the renderer imho. Others followed
and now people state it is a landcover tag.

m.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 11:48 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 13. Jun 2018 11:36 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:
>
> And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any
> place where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*.
>
>
> And that is why landuse=grass is used to map landcover - not land use.
>


and this is why we are having this discussion here for the nth time.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 11:24 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :
>
> What about the distinction "forest" and "wood"? Is a wood smaller and a 
> forest denser?




See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest 
 for the current situation, adding 
one more

contradictory tagging scheme is not going to help. 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 11:47 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :


> 2018-06-13 11:42 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > >:
>
>>   
>>
>>> I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not
>>> help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Exclude landuse=residential areas.
>>
>
>
> there are residential plots in actual, "true" forests though.




Can you give an example photo of something that would be correctly  tagged

landuse=residential and is in "true" forest?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Peter Elderson]

After looking over a lot of green areas in and around a few cities, I think
some way of recording mixed landcovers, particularly grass&trees and
scrub&trees, would be nice2have. A field of grass with a few trees is
*=grass, an area of trees with grass underneath is *=trees, but in between
a many areas of grass and/or scrub(s) with say 30-70% trees. Generally,
from the air you would say it's all trees, while on the ground it's mainly
grass with a lot of dark columns carrying a green roof blocking the sun.



2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer :

> 2018-06-13 11:31 GMT+02:00 :
>
>> Landuse describes how the land is used.
>>
>>
>>
>> residential, industrial, commercial, retail, military, farmland,
>> forestry, ...
>>
>>
>>
>> None of these have a fixed implication of what's on the land.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Landcover describes what's on the land.
>>
>>
>>
>> grass, scrub, trees, concrete, ...
>>
>>
>>
>> None of these have a fixed implication if the landcover is natural or man
>> made or managed.
>>
>
>
> +1, that's also what I would find intuitive.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Any point on the map has one actual landuse and one actual landcover.
>>
>
>
>
> every point will have a landcover, but not every point will have landuse.
> Only used land has landuse. E.g. on antarctica (or in deserts) you will not
> have any use for most of the land.
>
>
>
>
>> And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any
>> place where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*.
>>
>
>
> +1
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 11:44 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> 13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com:
>
> 2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>> Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag (rarely done for
>> obvious reasons) and
>>
> what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is owned by the public
> or privately owned?
>
>
> Complicated and boring to survey, limited usefulness of this information.
>

the usefulness of knowing the land ownership depends on the jurisdiction.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Colin Smale]

Why not map objective attributes, such as trees per hectare, species,
maybe natural vs managed? If the set of attributes is chosen well, then
people will be able to apply their own criteria as to what is an
"orchard" or a "forest" when consuming the data. After all, OSM is the
data, not the rendered map. 

We (a small number of people anyway, on behalf of the whole of OSM, most
of whom are unaware that this discussion is even taking place) are once
again spending a lot of energy trying to get global consensus on the
names people use to call these things, in a language which is not native
to the majority of participants. That seems pretty unachievable to me,
without a solid frame of reference. When the discussion dies down, it
won't be because there is real consensus, just that people have got
bored of the discussion and gone off to do more productive things with
their lives. Until the same subject flares up again at some point in the
future, then it all starts again.

On 2018-06-13 11:24, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> btw., we have only been discussing the term forest for landcover=trees, but 
> there are other places where trees grow, e.g. orchards, groves, copses, 
> bosks, thickets. We do have orchard as a tag, but we do not have anything 
> specific for copses and groves (some might be mapped as orchards?). Thickets 
> are generally mapped as natural=scrub? Bosk is a synonymon for grove? 
> 
> What about the distinction "forest" and "wood"? Is a wood smaller and a 
> forest denser? 
> 
> Cheers, 
> Martin 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 11:36 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any place 
> where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*.
>




And that is why landuse=grass is used to map landcover - not land use.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 11:42 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

>
> I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not
> help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster.
>
>
> Exclude landuse=residential areas.
>


there are residential plots in actual, "true" forests though.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 11:40 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> using landuse=forest to mark any area with trees is mapping for
> the renderer (and apparently accepted by a part of the community),
> hence the derogatory term.
>



mapping for the rendereris for deliberately mapping incorrect data
And landuse=forest is used for landcover, not landuse, so such mapping is 
correct.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:43 AM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 13. Jun 2018 10:31 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:
>
> I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not
> help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster.
>
>
> Exclude landuse=residential areas.
>
>
> So my current idea is to create
>
>
> (landuse=forest + natural=wood) - landuse=residential
>
>
> and calculate its area.

ok, thanks, pretty complex. Would be way easier with landcover = forest :-)

>
> and whether you think it's OK to have overlapping
> landuse
>
>
>  It is certainly OK to have overlapping areas with landuse=residential 
> (records landuse)
>
> and landuse=forest (records landcover).

unless landuse=forest does not overlap any other landuse in which
cases it might be a landuse (depending on who mapped it), not ?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 11:42 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :


> 2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > >:
>
>>   
>> Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag (rarely done for 
>> obvious reasons) and
>>
> what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is owned by the public or 
> privately owned?




Complicated and boring to survey, limited usefulness of this information.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 11:36 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag (rarely done for
> obvious reasons) and
>


what are the obvious reasons not to record if land is owned by the public
or privately owned?



> access in access tag (very rarely done for objects like forests, including
> forests with restricted entry).
>

I think it is not done because people think it is obvious (which might be
true, but only locally / within a given jurisdiction), but it would be
interesting to record it IMHO. E.g. some forests are private, but in
Germany this doesn't imply you cannot enter them. Sometimes, you are
allowed to walk in the forest, sometimes you may do so but only when
keeping on the ways, etc.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 10:31 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not
> help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster.




Exclude landuse=residential areas.




So my current idea is to create




(landuse=forest + natural=wood) - landuse=residential




and calculate its area.





> And again you have not answered my questions on how to map named
> forests with lakes




I have no idea how to do that, lakes are just a start. There are forests split

because leaf_type or some other property changes but entire area has name.





Real fun starts where one

has forest (or park) where parts of named area has their own names.





It is on my (long) OSM TODO list to invent useful tagging for that.


 


>  and whether you think it's OK to have overlapping
> landuse




 It is certainly OK to have overlapping areas with landuse=residential (records 
landuse)


and landuse=forest (records landcover).

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:36 AM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
>
>
> 13. Jun 2018 10:34 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:
>
> which is "colouring" the map.
>
>
> I am not sure is it intention, but it sounds like attempt to
>
> find a derogatory term for landcover mapping.

I would not use that term if you use landcover for this purpose. For
me, using landuse=forest to mark any area with trees is mapping for
the renderer (and apparently accepted by a part of the community),
hence the derogatory term.

m.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

totally agree with that.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:32 AM  wrote:
>
> For me, the situation (as it should be, not as it is) is pretty clear.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Landuse describes how the land is used.
>
>
>
> residential, industrial, commercial, retail, military, farmland, forestry, ...
>
>
>
> None of these have a fixed implication of what's on the land.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Landcover describes what's on the land.
>
>
>
> grass, scrub, trees, concrete, ...
>
>
>
> None of these have a fixed implication if the landcover is natural or man 
> made or managed.
>
>
>
>
>
> Any point on the map has one actual landuse and one actual landcover.
>
>
>
>
>
> You can have an area tagged as landuse=forestry and inside that area (or 
> partially overlapping it) you have a mix of areas with landcover trees, 
> grass, scrub, rock, whatever.
>
>
>
>
>
> If you have some trees in a backyard, that's landcover=trees in 
> landuse=residential.
>
>
>
>
>
> If you have a forest that's just been completely logged and is just starting 
> to regrow, that's landuse=forestry, landcover=scrub (probably, I'm sure 
> someone can come up with a proper sequence of landcovers for an area that 
> goes from trees to stumps and back to trees).
>
>
>
>
>
> That landuse=forestry is what landuse=forest should be, but it has been 
> completely burned by misuse to paint the map green and there is no way to 
> recover from that really.
>
>
>
> And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any place 
> where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*.
>
>
>
> If you are growing grass for animals, that's farmland or meadow. If you are 
> growing it because you want to sell it as rollout grassm that's farmland.
>
>
>
> If it's beside a road, that's either landuse=highway (if it's still part of 
> the public right of way) or part of whatever landuse (residential, 
> commercial, ...) describes the area outside the road.
>
>
>
> If it's "municipal greenery" it's probably either landuse=highway (if it's 
> still part of the public right of way) or landuse=recreation_ground.
>
>
>
> No matter what, *grass* is not a land*use*. It's what happens to *cover* the 
> land to fullfil some other *use*.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Martin Koppenhoefer 
> Sent: Wednesday, 13 June 2018 19:24
> To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag
>
>
>
> btw., we have only been discussing the term forest for landcover=trees, but 
> there are other places where trees grow, e.g. orchards, groves, copses, 
> bosks, thickets. We do have orchard as a tag, but we do not have anything 
> specific for copses and groves (some might be mapped as orchards?). Thickets 
> are generally mapped as natural=scrub? Bosk is a synonymon for grove?
>
>
>
> What about the distinction "forest" and "wood"? Is a wood smaller and a 
> forest denser?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Martin
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

Take a look at e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/913806#map=17/51.12071/4.09282&layers=N
You will see plenty of houses surrounded by landuse=forest. This is
because there are plenty of trees in the gardens near the house
(probably the area was a forest before).
The current mapping is not correct. There are gardens, driveways,
grassfields near the houses. However there are still patches with
trees left.

My idea was to map the whole area as landuse=residential and the areas
covered with trees as landcover=trees.
But some people here say that you should map those trees with
landuse=forest. So should those lu=forest overlap the lu=residential ?

Similar problems exists where there is e.g. a meadow with several
trees on it (too many trees to map individually), but still the
purpose is meadow (e.g. because there are horses).
Do you draw a meadow and on top of it a lu=forest ?


As for the named area, I understand your reply as : you have a
separate object (perhaps the outer ring of the mult-polygon) with the
name tag (so any area excluded by the inner rings are still within
that named area). Any other tags you place on that outer ring
(place=locality perhaps ?)

m.
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 10:47 AM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
>
>
> 2018-06-13 9:44 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :
>>
>>
>> * trees in gardens or in a meadow or any other area whose primary
>> function is not "trees" ( (using overlapping landuse ?)
>
>
>
> can you please rephrase this? It is not clear what you are asking.
>
>
>>
>> * where the name of the forest has to be placed when one uses a
>> multi-polygon to exclude ponds from the tree covered areas.
>
>
>
> names always have to apply to the area or position where they apply to in the 
> real world ;-)
> Whether to include or exclude areas from the named area depends on your 
> interpretation of the world, there is no standard answer to this, you have to 
> judge the actual situation. Generally I believe it would be safer to add 
> names to "name objects" like place if there is no other well defined area 
> like nature_reserve. Otherwise you will get into trouble when micromapping 
> (e.g. splitting a forest would mean creating 2 forests).
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 11:31 GMT+02:00 :

> Landuse describes how the land is used.
>
>
>
> residential, industrial, commercial, retail, military, farmland, forestry,
> ...
>
>
>
> None of these have a fixed implication of what's on the land.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Landcover describes what's on the land.
>
>
>
> grass, scrub, trees, concrete, ...
>
>
>
> None of these have a fixed implication if the landcover is natural or man
> made or managed.
>


+1, that's also what I would find intuitive.



>
>
>
>
> Any point on the map has one actual landuse and one actual landcover.
>



every point will have a landcover, but not every point will have landuse.
Only used land has landuse. E.g. on antarctica (or in deserts) you will not
have any use for most of the land.




> And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any
> place where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*.
>


+1


Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 10:34 by dieterdre...@gmail.com :


> 2018-06-13 9:20 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com 
> > >:
>
>>   
>>> A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
>>> private backyard.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So you want to count tree-covered areas that are not private? (including 
>> ones in private backyards).
>>
>
>
> the question of ownership and the orthogonal question of accessibility should 
> not be mixed with the question whether an area is a forest or not. Different 
> properties (at least for me), and depending on culture and jurisdiction.
>




Obviously - ownership would be recorded in owner tag (rarely done for obvious 
reasons) and

access in access tag (very rarely done for objects like forests, including 
forests with restricted entry).

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 10:34 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> which is "colouring" the map. 




I am not sure is it intention, but it sounds like attempt to

find a derogatory term for landcover mapping.





 


> But do you have
> suggestions for people that do want to record something more ?
>




Introduce a new tag, not conflicting with other tags and not duplicating

other tags to tag what they want to map.




It is hard to say more without a clear description what someone wants to map.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[osm.tagging]

For me, the situation (as it should be, not as it is) is pretty clear.

 

 

 

Landuse describes how the land is used. 

 

residential, industrial, commercial, retail, military, farmland, forestry, ...

 

None of these have a fixed implication of what's on the land.

 

 

 

Landcover describes what's on the land.

 

grass, scrub, trees, concrete, ...

 

None of these have a fixed implication if the landcover is natural or man made 
or managed.

 

 

Any point on the map has one actual landuse and one actual landcover.

 

 

You can have an area tagged as landuse=forestry and inside that area (or 
partially overlapping it) you have a mix of areas with landcover trees, grass, 
scrub, rock, whatever.

 

 

If you have some trees in a backyard, that's landcover=trees in 
landuse=residential.

 

 

If you have a forest that's just been completely logged and is just starting to 
regrow, that's landuse=forestry, landcover=scrub (probably, I'm sure someone 
can come up with a proper sequence of landcovers for an area that goes from 
trees to stumps and back to trees).

 

 

That landuse=forestry is what landuse=forest should be, but it has been 
completely burned by misuse to paint the map green and there is no way to 
recover from that really.

 

And landuse=grass doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not aware of any place 
where "grass" would be an appropiate land*use*. 

 

If you are growing grass for animals, that's farmland or meadow. If you are 
growing it because you want to sell it as rollout grassm that's farmland. 

 

If it's beside a road, that's either landuse=highway (if it's still part of the 
public right of way) or part of whatever landuse (residential, commercial, ...) 
describes the area outside the road.

 

If it's "municipal greenery" it's probably either landuse=highway (if it's 
still part of the public right of way) or landuse=recreation_ground.

 

No matter what, *grass* is not a land*use*. It's what happens to *cover* the 
land to fullfil some other *use*.

 

 

From: Martin Koppenhoefer  
Sent: Wednesday, 13 June 2018 19:24
To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

 

btw., we have only been discussing the term forest for landcover=trees, but 
there are other places where trees grow, e.g. orchards, groves, copses, bosks, 
thickets. We do have orchard as a tag, but we do not have anything specific for 
copses and groves (some might be mapped as orchards?). Thickets are generally 
mapped as natural=scrub? Bosk is a synonymon for grove?

 

What about the distinction "forest" and "wood"? Is a wood smaller and a forest 
denser?

 

Cheers,

Martin

 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

btw., we have only been discussing the term forest for landcover=trees, but
there are other places where trees grow, e.g. orchards, groves, copses,
bosks, thickets. We do have orchard as a tag, but we do not have anything
specific for copses and groves (some might be mapped as orchards?).
Thickets are generally mapped as natural=scrub? Bosk is a synonymon for
grove?

What about the distinction "forest" and "wood"? Is a wood smaller and a
forest denser?

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 13/06/18 18:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


2018-06-13 9:44 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis >:



* trees in gardens or in a meadow or any other area whose primary
function is not "trees" ( (using overlapping landuse ?)



can you please rephrase this? It is not clear what you are asking.


There is large area that are used by the military here. Some of that 
area is coved in trees.

Way: Holsworthy Military Reserve (374783780)
  Tags:
    "landuse"="military"
    "name"="Holsworthy Military Reserve"
    "access"="private"
Relation: 1542927
  Tags:
    "natural"="wood"
    "type"="multipolygon"

The wood multipolygon has inners to exclude areas that are not trees.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 9:44 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

>
> * trees in gardens or in a meadow or any other area whose primary
> function is not "trees" ( (using overlapping landuse ?)
>


can you please rephrase this? It is not clear what you are asking.



> * where the name of the forest has to be placed when one uses a
> multi-polygon to exclude ponds from the tree covered areas.
>


names always have to apply to the area or position where they apply to in
the real world ;-)
Whether to include or exclude areas from the named area depends on your
interpretation of the world, there is no standard answer to this, you have
to judge the actual situation. Generally I believe it would be safer to add
names to "name objects" like place if there is no other well defined area
like nature_reserve. Otherwise you will get into trouble when micromapping
(e.g. splitting a forest would mean creating 2 forests).

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 13/06/18 17:23, Marc Gemis wrote:


On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:15 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

won't work, see e.g.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932&layers=N
that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it.

Exclude area with landuse=residential ??


but what if you want to map the presence of trees. I would do that
with landcover=trees.


Me too...however I was responding to the request of excluding things not 
matching a specific requirement of lager areas of 'forests'. Whatever that 
means.


But those using landuse=forest will have to overlap it on
landuse=residential. As I see it, landuse=forest on top another
landuse still means the "other" landuse but with some trees on it.
landuse=forest not overlapping any other landuse means "forest", and
e.g. a small landuse=retail overlapping on landuse=residential means
retail (at least that is how carto-css present things now).



No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods

If everything was "properly" mapped with those 3 tags I could come up
with an algorithm. Not with the current mess of course.

Proper? Who says what is proper?

Proper for me means clearly separate landuse from landcover, so that
one can see the use of the land and how it is covered from different
tags.
Not proper is e.g. one mapper using landuse=forest to indicate an area
for timber production and another mapper to map trees in a private
residential garden.
The latter mapping is fine if you just want to colour a map. :-)


Yes.

One suggestion is that the present use of landcover to specify a land cover 
continues and that the land use of trees be yet another tag.

Another suggestion is the provision of two tags - one taking one of mapping 
trees the other of mapping timber production.

I prefer option 2 as then both sides have equal amounts of trouble ... :)

-
If 'proper' would mean that the tags were defined in such a way as to exclude 
another use then that would be good.
Start at one end and work towards the other? Would the start be at 'landuse' or 
at the values 'grass' and 'forest'? :)
Good luck ... too many people stuck with what we have now, and while that 
remains the mess will continue.





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 9:23 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis :

>
> Not proper is e.g. one mapper using landuse=forest to indicate an area
> for timber production and another mapper to map trees in a private
> residential garden.
> The latter mapping is fine if you just want to colour a map. :-)
>


the latter mapping is also fine if you are only interested to know where
trees grow (size is implicit anyway). "to colour a map" is belittleing the
value of micromapping tree covered areas.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

>
> Or if you wish to record landcover without intention of (in this case) to map
>
> landuse.

which is "colouring" the map. I understand that you do not care about
anything else than the presence of trees. Fine. But do you have
suggestions for people that do want to record something more ?
(Building on your landuse=forest for any groups of trees.)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-13 9:20 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
> private backyard.
>
>
> So you want to count tree-covered areas that are not private? (including
> ones in private backyards).
>


the question of ownership and the orthogonal question of accessibility
should not be mixed with the question whether an area is a forest or not.
Different properties (at least for me), and depending on culture and
jurisdiction.


Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

> Private vs. public does not matter.
> Private gardens with some trees in it are not a forest.
> A tree row in a field is not a forest for me.
>
> According to Wikipedia [1] there are hundreds of different definitions
> of forest. Not only that, some people are only interested in mapping
> "groups of trees" so the map is nicely coloured.
> For me, a forest is more than just a group of trees. I don't have a
> ready to use definition so there are many grey areas left. But think
> about a park but with less human shaped areas (grass, ponds, benches,
> waste bins), but still maintained by humans. It includes trees but can
> also include bushes, plants, flowers, grass, ponds, streams and
> paths/roads. Typically the paths are not as well maintained as in
> parks. Please note that is how I see parks/forests in Belgium, other
> countries can have different definitions.
>
>
> Note that you look for a specific kind of forests.
>
>
> For example there are forests that are
>
>
> - logging oriented (with no paths and tracks usable only by heavy machinery)
>
> - nature reserves, with no entry allowed
>
> - private forests, with entry controlled by owner
>
> - and many more cases.
>

I'm fine that all of those are called forest. But again that does not
help to exclude the one I have shown you in Waasmunster.
And again you have not answered my questions on how to map named
forests with lakes and whether you think it's OK to have overlapping
landuse, those are more important than defining my vague definition of
forest.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-06-12 14:59 GMT+02:00 Paul Allen :

> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I didn't want to quibble and am seriously trying to understand you. To
>> me, a "group of trees" means a few trees, say starting from 3 to maybe 20
>> or maybe even 50 on the extreme end, usually something lower than 10.
>>
>
> A group is an unspecified, and possibly indeterminate, number.  You're
> thinking of small groups. :)
>
>

yes, a group is generally an unspecified number, but context gives an
indication of the dimension. If you talk about a "group of trees", it is
IMHO a description of trees that are not in a forest, or are a very small
part of trees with specific characterstics in a forest. A whole forest will
not be referred to in natural language or have "forest" in the name (what
you were writing about).

While there is some uncertainty about the definition of what does
constitute a "forest", it is often clear for few trees that they are _not_.
A forest means more than trees, it means microclimate, soil structure,
habitat. There is a minimum size for an area with trees which is required
to form a microclimate, if there are too few, a forest will not form.

A group of trees is something like this:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hergisdorf,_a_group_of_trees_western_of_the_village.jpg
https://pixabay.com/en/trees-group-nature-mood-1548338/
https://jooinn.com/group-of-trees.html#gal_post_89850_group-of-trees-4.jpg
etc.

This is not a group of trees:
http://www.ostbayern-tourismus.de/extension/portal-ostbayern/var/storage/images/media/bilder/landschaft-und-regionen/bayerischer-wald-1/46849-1-ger-DE/Bayerischer-Wald-1_front_magnific.jpg
it is a forest.



> Come up with a better term if you think it necessary.  I was trying to
> convey that this was a tag that applied to
> anything from a copse to a forest.
>


yes, the tag is applied to any kind of area with trees, but the word
"forest" is not.




> What we're trying to come up with a suitable name for is a tag to use
> when trees are too closely spaced *or trees which are not closely spaced
> but cover a very large area) that
> tagging individual trees would be far too much effort.
>


we actually do have a tag for this, we even have 3. ;-)

What we are lacking is a way to tell that a nature reserve is mainly about
a forest (e.g. a national forest), even if/although not all of the area is
covered by trees. Right now you can only see this from the name, if you
understand the language.



> ...  The tag landuse=forest is documented about marking areas where trees
> are grown
> to be logged, and which are periodically cut down,
>



Although after a lot of modifications, the wiki is less clear than ever,
there is no requirement of "logging" or periodically cutting down on the
relevant wiki pages. The tag definition page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforest states:
"Forest. Sometimes considered to have restricted meaning "Managed woodland
or woodland plantation". "
and
"*Managed woodland* or woodland plantation. There are major differences in
the way this tag & natural 
=wood  are used by
some Openstreetmap users. Some use this tag for land primarily managed for
timber production, others uses if for woodland that is in some way
maintained by humans, some for any forest. This problem is explained in the
page *Forest *."


i.e. the wiki states the requirement for landuse=forest to be about a
forest, but links to another page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest
which reduces the requirements:
"A *forest* or *woodland* is an area covered by trees. Two different tags
are used to describe this: natural
=wood
 and landuse
=forest
. There are major
differences in the way these are used by some OpenStreetMap mappers.
Situation is complicated as different people advocate different,
conflicting tagging schemes. Depending on region there may or may not be
difference between areas tagged as natural
=wood
 and landuse
=forest
. Difference, if
any, depends on who mapped the area. As result nearly all data consumers
treat both natural =wood
 and landuse
=forest
 as synonymous
tags for a forested area."






inside the fores

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 08/06/18 08:37, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
& it's an impossible question to answer, but how many of those 3.5 
million tags are on "areas of land managed for forestry"? :-) t be the sa


From a random look around .. about half.

There is yet another tag that has a fair amount of use ... landuse=logging.
I thing this might be landuse=forestry but in the harvesting stage.
I am yet to look at the age of these areas existence, I suspect they are 
older than the time taken for trees to start growing and should be 
landuse=forestry.
Mainly in central Russia (or what ever it is called nowerdays, sorry) 
and western Europe.
Is it too late to stop this .. probably. It may well be the new 
landuse=forestry! Well intended to separate it out from anyone thinking 
of 'just trees'?




Thanks

Graeme

On 8 June 2018 at 08:11, Andy Townsend > wrote:


On 07/06/18 23:00, Peter Elderson wrote:

I think landuse=forest should remain intact, for cases where
forestry is actually how the land is used.
So the tag is not deprecated, it's just applicated more
consistently.


So you're proposing to change the meaning of a tag that has 3.5
million uses?

I'm sure that you have only the best of intentions, but, er, good
luck with that :)


Yep.
I too am of the opinion that landuse=forest is not a tag for future use, 
the meaning is taken 2 ways.

Much better to have 2 tags available for use of each meaning.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 09:23 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> Proper for me means clearly separate landuse from landcover, so that
> one can see the use of the land and how it is covered from different
> tags.
> Not proper is e.g. one mapper using landuse=forest to indicate an area
> for timber production and another mapper to map trees in a private
> residential garden.
> The latter mapping is fine if you just want to colour a map. :-)
>




Or if you wish to record landcover without intention of (in this case) to map 


landuse.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 09:44 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> Private vs. public does not matter.
> Private gardens with some trees in it are not a forest.
> A tree row in a field is not a forest for me.
>
> According to Wikipedia [1] there are hundreds of different definitions
> of forest. Not only that, some people are only interested in mapping
> "groups of trees" so the map is nicely coloured.
> For me, a forest is more than just a group of trees. I don't have a
> ready to use definition so there are many grey areas left. But think
> about a park but with less human shaped areas (grass, ponds, benches,
> waste bins), but still maintained by humans. It includes trees but can
> also include bushes, plants, flowers, grass, ponds, streams and
> paths/roads. Typically the paths are not as well maintained as in
> parks. Please note that is how I see parks/forests in Belgium, other
> countries can have different definitions.
>




Note that you look for a specific kind of forests. 





For example there are forests that are




- logging oriented (with no paths and tracks usable only by heavy machinery)


- nature reserves, with no entry allowed

- private forests, with entry controlled by owner

- and many more cases.




Excluding private gardens and tree rows would be just a start (though it may

be sufficient in case of Belgium).




> * trees in gardens or in a meadow or any other area whose primary
> function is not "trees" ( (using overlapping landuse ?)




I use landuse=forest in that case (to mark area as covered by trees,

not to record landuse).

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

Private vs. public does not matter.
Private gardens with some trees in it are not a forest.
A tree row in a field is not a forest for me.

According to Wikipedia [1] there are hundreds of different definitions
of forest. Not only that, some people are only interested in mapping
"groups of trees" so the map is nicely coloured.
For me, a forest is more than just a group of trees. I don't have a
ready to use definition so there are many grey areas left. But think
about a park but with less human shaped areas (grass, ponds, benches,
waste bins), but still maintained by humans. It includes trees but can
also include bushes, plants, flowers, grass, ponds, streams and
paths/roads. Typically the paths are not as well maintained as in
parks. Please note that is how I see parks/forests in Belgium, other
countries can have different definitions.

For me, the current data is only fine to see some colour on the map. I
wonder how people that really work with this type of landuse/landcover
data think about the OSM-data. I know about one scientific article
that even recommends OSM for landuse/landcover.(don't have the URL
here).
So perhaps it is not so bad, and it's only my idea of a neatly
structured landuse/landcover separation that finds the data useless
for other purposes.

As to Peter, I have written my rough ideas on landuse/landcover 2
years ago or so on the Belgian mailing list. While there are others
that share the landcover vision, we have not done anything with it.
There are still many open issues:
landuse/landcover/leisure/surface/natural all overlap in some ways.
Even the building tag overlaps with the landcover tag. If you define a
different system, where do you draw the line? What do you want to map
in another way ?
And even if we agree, it would take too long to revisit all place and
redo the armchair work that created the current landuse mapping in
Belgium at this moment.

But I haven't seen any reply on how I should map

* trees in gardens or in a meadow or any other area whose primary
function is not "trees" ( (using overlapping landuse ?)
* where the name of the forest has to be placed when one uses a
multi-polygon to exclude ponds from the tree covered areas.

So Mateusz, Andy, how do you solve those problems ?



[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:21 AM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
>
>
> 13. Jun 2018 07:47 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:
>
> won't work, see e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932&layers=N
> that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it.
>
>
> I opened https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1424854 - somebody included also 
> areas
>
> without trees.
>
>
> A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
> private backyard.
>
>
> So you want to count tree-covered areas that are not private? (including ones 
> in private backyards).
>
>
> I think that it is not doable with current OSM data (access=private is 
> extremely rarely
>
> tagged on private areas) though excluding areas tagged also as 
> landuse=residential
>
> may be a good approximation.
>
>
>
> Our government talks often about there is so many square meter of
> forest in Belgium.
> It's not sufficient to subtract all small areas, you need to subtract
> somehow everything that is not a forest (see above)
>
>
> So do you want to exclude private forests or something else?
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 9:15 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> won't work, see e.g.
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932&layers=N
>> that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it.
>
> Exclude area with landuse=residential ??


but what if you want to map the presence of trees. I would do that
with landcover=trees.
But those using landuse=forest will have to overlap it on
landuse=residential. As I see it, landuse=forest on top another
landuse still means the "other" landuse but with some trees on it.
landuse=forest not overlapping any other landuse means "forest", and
e.g. a small landuse=retail overlapping on landuse=residential means
retail (at least that is how carto-css present things now).

>> >
>> >
>> > No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods
>>
>> If everything was "properly" mapped with those 3 tags I could come up
>> with an algorithm. Not with the current mess of course.
>
> Proper? Who says what is proper?

Proper for me means clearly separate landuse from landcover, so that
one can see the use of the land and how it is covered from different
tags.
Not proper is e.g. one mapper using landuse=forest to indicate an area
for timber production and another mapper to map trees in a private
residential garden.
The latter mapping is fine if you just want to colour a map. :-)

m

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Mateusz Konieczny]

13. Jun 2018 07:47 by marc.ge...@gmail.com :


> won't work, see e.g.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932&layers=N
>  
> 
> that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees in it.
>




I opened https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/1424854 
 - somebody included also areas 


without trees.





> A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
> private backyard.




So you want to count tree-covered areas that are not private? (including ones 
in private backyards).




I think that it is not doable with current OSM data (access=private is 
extremely rarely

tagged on private areas) though excluding areas tagged also as 
landuse=residential

may be a good approximation.


 


> Our government talks often about there is so many square meter of
> forest in Belgium.
> It's not sufficient to subtract all small areas, you need to subtract
> somehow everything that is not a forest (see above)




So do you want to exclude private forests or something else? 

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 13/06/18 16:03, Peter Elderson wrote:
Would it be possible to get the osm-community in Belgium to agree on 
one tagging principle for trees/wood/forest?

And get it done that way?

2018-06-13 7:47 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis >:


On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:57 PM Mateusz Konieczny
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 12. Jun 2018 13:22 by marc.ge...@gmail.com
:
>
> How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there
is in
> a country based on OSM-data ?
>
>
> I would start from something like: total area of area covered by
>
> landuse=forest and natural=wood
>
> after excluding very small areas.
>
>

won't work, see e.g.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932&layers=N


that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees
in it.


Exclude area with landuse=residential ??



>
>  Is the data suited for that ?
>
>
> Depends on (a) where (b) what kind of accuracy is needed, forest
in many regions
>
> are unmapped or partially mapped.
>
>
>
> How can I find those places with OSM data ?
>
>
> What you exactly want to find?


A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
private backyard.
Our government talks often about there is so many square meter of
forest in Belgium.
It's not sufficient to subtract all small areas, you need to subtract
somehow everything that is not a forest (see above)

>
>
>
> I thought I had an answer for all the above questions when
> natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees where used "properly".


And you might consider landuse=logging too ...


>
>
> No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods

If everything was "properly" mapped with those 3 tags I could come up
with an algorithm. Not with the current mess of course.


Proper? Who says what is proper?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging