subject:"\[Tagging\] Feature Proposal \- RFC \- \(Ground\)"

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-21 Thread Michael Montani

I think it is a good idea to consider a threshold of vegetation present on the 
ground in order not to confuse the proposed natural=bare_soil with other 
landcover tags as natural=scrub or natural=grassland.

According to the CORINE landcover definitions we mentioned before, sparsely 
vegetated areas are defined as areas with less than 50% vegetation covering. 
Thus, < 30% seems good to me.
As for the FAO classification, I think bare_soil can be classified as any 
compacted bare area with ground (meant as: any area of silt or clay soil, as 
well as loam (mixed soil with clay/silt/sand) and mixed organic (including 
humus) and mineral soil). This tag should be applied whenever the groundy area 
cannot be tagged with already existing tags, mainly due to the environmental or 
geological nature of that area (as, for example, natural=wetland + 
intermittent=yes).

Also, good images in the talk 
page<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground> are 
present, with [13] and [15] being my favourites. I also think not all the 
bare_soil areas are deserts or desert pavements, and I don't consider mapping 
ground as mapping the un-mapped.

I would like to raise a last round of consultations, after which I will proceed 
with the voting.

Thanks,
Michael



Da: mbranco2 
Inviato: giovedì 16 luglio 2020 16:06
A: tagging@openstreetmap.org 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

natural=bare_soil  sounds good to me, maybe it should be useful to set a 
maximum vegetation percentage (30% ?)
If not, someone could say "Hey, there are two bushes in that area, it's not 
bare soil"


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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-16 Thread Volker Schmidt

My idea was only trying to avoid to invent tag values for OSM without
consulting what other, technically more competent bodies, have done before.
Looks as the FAO classification could have  served as template for OSM
tagging approach years back. But we now are only after tag value for bare
soil, not a whole new table of  landcover values.

On Thu, 16 Jul 2020, 12:06 Michael Montani,  wrote:

> According to the document you shared
> <http://www.fao.org/3/x0596e/X0596e02a.htm#P1974_116516>, bare soil is
> mentioned in:
> *Primarily non-vegetated > Terrestrial > Bare areas*
>
> And within *Bare areas*, *Bare soil* is an available category, being
> distinguished by *Bare rock* whether the terrain is consolidated or not.
> Within *Bare soil*, further classification is made depending on a
> "stoniness" percentage (5 to 40% *Stony*, >40% *Very stony*) and on soil
> macropatterns (II level).
>
> I think this could be useful material for us to make a decision.
> *natural=bare_soil *targeting all the areas of unconsolidated ground
> material could be used whether or not a groundy area hasn't already a tag
> that suits better its representation (e.g. *natural=wetland +
> intermittent=yes*, *landuse=quarry*...).
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> *Michael Montani*
> GIS Consultant, *Client Solutions Delivery Section*
> *Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies*
> United Nations Global Service Centre
> United Nations Department of Operational Support
>
> Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission:
> 158 6985
> E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org  | www.ungsc.org
>
> --
> *Da:* Martin Koppenhoefer 
> *Inviato:* mercoledì 15 luglio 2020 10:08
> *A:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools  >
> *Oggetto:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)
>
>
>
> Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
>
> If you are interested in reading some interesting thoughts about landcover
> classification, there is the FAO landcover classification system, thought
> to be useful globally:
> http://www.fao.org/3/X0596E/X0596e00.htm
>
>
>
>
> there are only 8 main classes:
> http://www.fao.org/3/X0596E/X0596e10.gif
>
> and you can easily determine them through a decision matrix:
> 1. primarily vegetated or primarily non-vegetated?
> 2. terrestrial or aquatic/flooded regularly?
> 3. cultivated/man made/artificial or natural?
>
> then they add additional properties like life forms, crops, leaf types,
> climate, ...
>
> From the combination of these properties and classes, detailed land cover
> classes are determined:
>
>
> http://www.fao.org/3/x0596e/X0596e02a.htm#P1974_116516
>
> E.g. here:
>
> TABLE 3.4
> *Example of the formation of land cover classes*
>
> *EXAMPLE: "NATURAL AND SEMI-NATURAL TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION" (A12)*
>
> *Classifiers used*
>
> *Boolean formula*
>
> *Standard class name*
>
> *Code*
>
> Life form and cover
>
> A3A10
>
> Closed forest
>
> 20005
>
> Height
>
> A3A10B2
>
> High closed forest
>
> 20006
>
> Spatial distribution
>
> A3A10B2C1
>
> Continuous closed forest
>
> 20007
>
> Leaf type
>
> A3A10B2C1D1
>
> Broad-leaved closed forest
>
> 20095
>
> Leaf phenology
>
> A3A10B2C1D1E2
>
> Broad-leaved deciduous forest
>
> 20097
>
> 2nd layer: LF, C, H
>
> A3A10B2C1D1E2F2F5F7G2
>
> Multi-layered broad-leaved deciduous forest
>
> 20628
>
> 3rd layer: LF, C, H
>
> A3A10B2C1D1E2F2F5F7G2
>
> Multi-layer broad-leaved deciduous forest with emergents
>
> 20630
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> PS: And the best: LCCS comes as a run time application, you do not need to
> have virtual basic installed !!11!!!
>
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-16 Thread mbranco2

natural=bare_soil  sounds good to me, maybe it should be useful to set a
maximum vegetation percentage (30% ?)
If not, someone could say "Hey, there are two bushes in that area, it's not
bare soil"


<#m_-8688031786923632378_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-16 Thread Michael Montani

According to the document you 
shared<http://www.fao.org/3/x0596e/X0596e02a.htm#P1974_116516>, bare soil is 
mentioned in:
Primarily non-vegetated > Terrestrial > Bare areas

And within Bare areas, Bare soil is an available category, being distinguished 
by Bare rock whether the terrain is consolidated or not.
Within Bare soil, further classification is made depending on a "stoniness" 
percentage (5 to 40% Stony, >40% Very stony) and on soil macropatterns (II 
level).

I think this could be useful material for us to make a decision. 
natural=bare_soil targeting all the areas of unconsolidated ground material 
could be used whether or not a groundy area hasn't already a tag that suits 
better its representation (e.g. natural=wetland + intermittent=yes, 
landuse=quarry...).

Thanks,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>


Da: Martin Koppenhoefer 
Inviato: mercoledì 15 luglio 2020 10:08
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)



Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>:
If you are interested in reading some interesting thoughts about landcover 
classification, there is the FAO landcover classification system, thought to be 
useful globally:
http://www.fao.org/3/X0596E/X0596e00.htm




there are only 8 main classes:
http://www.fao.org/3/X0596E/X0596e10.gif

and you can easily determine them through a decision matrix:
1. primarily vegetated or primarily non-vegetated?
2. terrestrial or aquatic/flooded regularly?
3. cultivated/man made/artificial or natural?

then they add additional properties like life forms, crops, leaf types, 
climate, ...

>From the combination of these properties and classes, detailed land cover 
>classes are determined:


http://www.fao.org/3/x0596e/X0596e02a.htm#P1974_116516

E.g. here:

TABLE 3.4
Example of the formation of land cover classes

EXAMPLE: "NATURAL AND SEMI-NATURAL TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION" (A12)

Classifiers used

Boolean formula

Standard class name

Code

Life form and cover

A3A10

Closed forest

20005

Height

A3A10B2

High closed forest

20006

Spatial distribution

A3A10B2C1

Continuous closed forest

20007

Leaf type

A3A10B2C1D1

Broad-leaved closed forest

20095

Leaf phenology

A3A10B2C1D1E2

Broad-leaved deciduous forest

20097

2nd layer: LF, C, H

A3A10B2C1D1E2F2F5F7G2

Multi-layered broad-leaved deciduous forest

20628

3rd layer: LF, C, H

A3A10B2C1D1E2F2F5F7G2

Multi-layer broad-leaved deciduous forest with emergents

20630

Cheers,
Martin

PS: And the best: LCCS comes as a run time application, you do not need to have 
virtual basic installed !!11!!!

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

Am Mi., 15. Juli 2020 um 09:45 Uhr schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

> If you are interested in reading some interesting thoughts about landcover
> classification, there is the FAO landcover classification system, thought
> to be useful globally:
> http://www.fao.org/3/X0596E/X0596e00.htm
>
>


there are only 8 main classes:
http://www.fao.org/3/X0596E/X0596e10.gif

and you can easily determine them through a decision matrix:
1. primarily vegetated or primarily non-vegetated?
2. terrestrial or aquatic/flooded regularly?
3. cultivated/man made/artificial or natural?

then they add additional properties like life forms, crops, leaf types,
climate, ...

>From the combination of these properties and classes, detailed land cover
classes are determined:


http://www.fao.org/3/x0596e/X0596e02a.htm#P1974_116516

E.g. here:

TABLE 3.4
*Example of the formation of land cover classes*

*EXAMPLE: "NATURAL AND SEMI-NATURAL TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION" (A12)*

*Classifiers used*

*Boolean formula*

*Standard class name*

*Code*

Life form and cover

A3A10

Closed forest

20005

Height

A3A10B2

High closed forest

20006

Spatial distribution

A3A10B2C1

Continuous closed forest

20007

Leaf type

A3A10B2C1D1

Broad-leaved closed forest

20095

Leaf phenology

A3A10B2C1D1E2

Broad-leaved deciduous forest

20097

2nd layer: LF, C, H

A3A10B2C1D1E2F2F5F7G2

Multi-layered broad-leaved deciduous forest

20628

3rd layer: LF, C, H

A3A10B2C1D1E2F2F5F7G2

Multi-layer broad-leaved deciduous forest with emergents

20630

Cheers,
Martin

PS: And the best: LCCS comes as a run time application, you do not need to
have virtual basic installed !!11!!!
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-15 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

Am Di., 14. Juli 2020 um 18:24 Uhr schrieb Volker Schmidt :

> I suggested this as a helpful guide when defining tag values. I don't
> think it can be used one-to-one for OSM.
> Bare ground, BTW, can be found also the area covered by CORINE, as it
> includes the Sahara for example)
>


right, but it still remains a system created for the automatic recognition
of features in 1:100.000 with generalized areas (min 25ha), for Europe. It
is not helpful for our purpose.
If you are interested in reading some interesting thoughts about landcover
classification, there is the FAO landcover classification system, thought
to be useful globally:
http://www.fao.org/3/X0596E/X0596e00.htm

One interesting find is the rejection of the term landcover for bare soil
for purists (and then admits they are usually contained) ;-)
http://www.fao.org/3/X0596E/x0596e01e.htm#p230_19485

> The definition of land cover is fundamental, because in many existing
> classifications and legends it is confused with land use. It is defined as:
>
> *Land cover is the observed (bio)physical cover on the earth's surface.*
>
> When considering land cover in a very pure and strict sense it should be
> confined to describe vegetation and man-made features. Consequently, areas
> where the surface consists of bare rock or bare soil are describing *land*
> itself rather than land *cover*. Also, it is disputable whether water
> surfaces are real land cover. However, in practise, the scientific
> community usually describes those aspects under the term land cover.
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-15 Thread mbranco2

I found interesting the Corine definition for "3.3.3 Sparsely vegetated
areas" [1] : it refers to various scenarios, and specify a percentage
(10%-50%, or "less than 50%") for vegetation landcover.

In the similar American paper [2] mentioned in a previous post, we find for
barren land (page 18): "less than one-third of the area has vegetation or
other cover".

I think that using a vegetation percentage (less than ...) to define the
new tag should be the right choice; without this new tag, all is "scrub"...

[1]
https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index-clc-333.html
[2] https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0964/report.pdf






Mail
priva di virus. www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-14 Thread Volker Schmidt

I suggested this as a helpful guide when defining tag values. I don't think
it can be used one-to-one for OSM.
Bare ground, BTW, can be found also the area covered by CORINE, as it
includes the Sahara for example)

Volker

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 at 18:01, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 14. Jul 2020, at 17:36, mbranco2  wrote:
> >
> > Unluckily it's only about part of Europe (from 62°N to 28°S, from 14°W
> to 29°E)
>
> > The working scale of the project was 1/10, and the smallest mapping
> unit was 25 hectares.
>
>
> thank you for mentioning significant specification details and coverage
> area, these alone should demonstrate that CORINE data is not useful for
> inclusion in OpenStreetMap and it is probably also not helpful to copy the
> definitions for landcover from.
>
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-14 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

sent from a phone

> On 14. Jul 2020, at 17:36, mbranco2  wrote:
> 
> Unluckily it's only about part of Europe (from 62°N to 28°S, from 14°W to 
> 29°E)

> The working scale of the project was 1/10, and the smallest mapping unit 
> was 25 hectares.

thank you for mentioning significant specification details and coverage area, 
these alone should demonstrate that CORINE data is not useful for inclusion in 
OpenStreetMap and it is probably also not helpful to copy the definitions for 
landcover from.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-14 Thread mbranco2

*"...Said this, why not try to use CORINE [1] definitions?"*

Thank you Voschix to mention this paper, searching the ISBN code (ISBN
92-826-2578-8) I was able to download it from researchgate.net (it's a pdf
with 120 pages).
Unluckily it's only about part of Europe (from 62°N to 28°S, from 14°W to
29°E), 12 European countries participated in this project.

The working scale of the project was 1/10, and the smallest mapping
unit was 25 hectares.

About desertic lands we're discussing, this is their classification:

3. Forests and semi-natural areas
3.3 Open Spaces with little or no vegetation
3.3.1 Beaches, dunes, and sand plains
3.3.2 Bare rock
3.3.3 Sparsely vegetation
3.3.4 Burnt areas
3.3.5 Glaciers and perpetual snow


Mail
priva di virus. www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-14 Thread Michael Montani

This proposal is interesting. Giving a rapid look on the CORINE classes, it 
seems bare soil is included in all other classes but it hasn't a class per se.

  *   CORINE 
library<https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index.html>
  *   333 Sparsely vegetated 
areas<https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index-clc-333.html>
  *   332 Bare 
rock<https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index-clc-332.html>
  *   331 Beaches, sand and 
dunes<https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/html/index-clc-331.html>
 the most near imo.
  *   Many others, searching for "ground" and "soil" into the 
manual<https://land.copernicus.eu/user-corner/technical-library/corine-land-cover-nomenclature-guidelines/docs/pdf/CLC2018_Nomenclature_illustrated_guide_20190510.pdf>

It seems to me anyway those classes are looser than OSM's 

Thanks,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>

Da: Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
Inviato: martedì 14 luglio 2020 15:29
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Cc: Mateusz Konieczny ; Tag discussion, strategy and 
related tools 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Maybe. I would be interested in specific
proposals.

14 Jul 2020, 14:24 by vosc...@gmail.com:
I am not a land cover expert, but have come across a great number of obviously 
wrong land cover tagging in OSM.
Said this, why not try to use CORINE [1] definitions?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_of_Information_on_the_Environment

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 11:52 Christoph Hormann, 
mailto:o...@imagico.de>> wrote:

> Joseph Eisenberg 
> mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> hat am 13. 
> Juli 2020 um 22:34 geschrieben:
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrishunkeler/32097822997
>

I think this is a great example why more specific tags are advisable to use in 
OSM than a generic bare ground tag.

What this picture shows is commonly known as desert pavement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_pavement

Apart from varying in size distribution and density as well as material of the 
stones these form a fairly characteristic surface that can and should be mapped 
distinctly.  As size of the larger stones strongly affects navigability, 
specifying that would be a valuable supplemental tag.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-14 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging

Maybe. I would be interested in specific
proposals.

14 Jul 2020, 14:24 by vosc...@gmail.com:

> I am not a land cover expert, but have come across a great number of 
> obviously wrong land cover tagging in OSM. 
> Said this, why not try to use CORINE [1] definitions?
>
> [1] > 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_of_Information_on_the_Environment
>
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 11:52 Christoph Hormann, <> o...@imagico.de> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> > Joseph Eisenberg <>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> > hat am 13. Juli 2020 
>> > um 22:34 geschrieben:
>>  > 
>>  > >> https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrishunkeler/32097822997
>>  > 
>>  
>>  I think this is a great example why more specific tags are advisable to use 
>> in OSM than a generic bare ground tag.
>>  
>>  What this picture shows is commonly known as desert pavement:
>>  
>>  >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_pavement
>>  
>>  Apart from varying in size distribution and density as well as material of 
>> the stones these form a fairly characteristic surface that can and should be 
>> mapped distinctly.  As size of the larger stones strongly affects 
>> navigability, specifying that would be a valuable supplemental tag.
>>  
>>  -- 
>>  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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-14 Thread Volker Schmidt

I am not a land cover expert, but have come across a great number of
obviously wrong land cover tagging in OSM.
Said this, why not try to use CORINE [1] definitions?

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordination_of_Information_on_the_Environment

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020, 11:52 Christoph Hormann,  wrote:

>
>
> > Joseph Eisenberg  hat am 13. Juli 2020 um
> 22:34 geschrieben:
> >
> > https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrishunkeler/32097822997
> >
>
> I think this is a great example why more specific tags are advisable to
> use in OSM than a generic bare ground tag.
>
> What this picture shows is commonly known as desert pavement:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_pavement
>
> Apart from varying in size distribution and density as well as material of
> the stones these form a fairly characteristic surface that can and should
> be mapped distinctly.  As size of the larger stones strongly affects
> navigability, specifying that would be a valuable supplemental tag.
>
> --
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-14 Thread Christoph Hormann



> Joseph Eisenberg  hat am 13. Juli 2020 um 22:34 
> geschrieben:
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrishunkeler/32097822997
> 

I think this is a great example why more specific tags are advisable to use in 
OSM than a generic bare ground tag.

What this picture shows is commonly known as desert pavement:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_pavement

Apart from varying in size distribution and density as well as material of the 
stones these form a fairly characteristic surface that can and should be mapped 
distinctly.  As size of the larger stones strongly affects navigability, 
specifying that would be a valuable supplemental tag.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-13 Thread Warin

Most Australian deserts cannot be mapped as a consistent land cover but 
as a patchwork combination of differing land covers. As such mapping the 
land cover is a time intensive task and given the usefulness of such 
information compared to other priorities is not something that would be 
done any time soon.



 On 14/7/20 7:47 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Many desert climates can be mapped as natural=sand (for dunes and 
other areas of sand), natural=bare_rock (for bedrock and large 
stones), natural=scree, natural=shingle, or natural=heath (for areas 
of dwarf shrubs), but we still need a tag for unvegetated areas which 
are not sand, rock, stones or vegetation. While these areas are rare 
in many climates, they can cover fairly large spots in some very dry 
areas, and we should provide more precise tagging since 
"natural=desert" could be any of these things (or even natural=scrub)


– Joseph




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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-13 Thread brad

Has as an example been found yet?   There are areas that are void of 
vegetation for most of the year, or even years, that change with the 
right amount of rain.

On 7/13/20 3:47 PM, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Many desert climates can be mapped as natural=sand (for dunes and 
other areas of sand), natural=bare_rock (for bedrock and large 
stones), natural=scree, natural=shingle, or natural=heath (for areas 
of dwarf shrubs), but we still need a tag for unvegetated areas which 
are not sand, rock, stones or vegetation. While these areas are rare 
in many climates, they can cover fairly large spots in some very dry 
areas, and we should provide more precise tagging since 
"natural=desert" could be any of these things (or even natural=scrub)

– Joseph

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 2:24 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

sent from a phone

> On 13. Jul 2020, at 23:16, Peter Elderson mailto:pelder...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> As I understand it, it is soil. That is something.

sure, you could also spend a lifetime mapping rocks, and when
you’re done, you start mapping smaller rocks ;)

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-13 Thread Joseph Eisenberg

Many desert climates can be mapped as natural=sand (for dunes and other
areas of sand), natural=bare_rock (for bedrock and large stones),
natural=scree, natural=shingle, or natural=heath (for areas of dwarf
shrubs), but we still need a tag for unvegetated areas which are not sand,
rock, stones or vegetation. While these areas are rare in many climates,
they can cover fairly large spots in some very dry areas, and we should
provide more precise tagging since "natural=desert" could be any of these
things (or even natural=scrub)

– Joseph

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 2:24 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 13. Jul 2020, at 23:16, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> >
> > As I understand it, it is soil. That is something.
>
>
> sure, you could also spend a lifetime mapping rocks, and when you’re done,
> you start mapping smaller rocks ;)
>
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-13 Thread Peter Elderson

That's OSM in a nutshell.

Mvg Peter Elderson

> Op 13 jul. 2020 om 23:24 heeft Martin Koppenhoefer  
> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> 
> sent from a phone
> 
>> On 13. Jul 2020, at 23:16, Peter Elderson  wrote:
>> 
>> As I understand it, it is soil. That is something.
> 
> 
> sure, you could also spend a lifetime mapping rocks, and when you’re done, 
> you start mapping smaller rocks ;)
> 
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



sent from a phone

> On 13. Jul 2020, at 23:16, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> As I understand it, it is soil. That is something.


sure, you could also spend a lifetime mapping rocks, and when you’re done, you 
start mapping smaller rocks ;)

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-13 Thread Peter Elderson

As I understand it, it is soil. That is something.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op ma 13 jul. 2020 om 23:09 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 13. Jul 2020, at 22:36, Joseph Eisenberg 
> wrote:
> >
> > The Atacama desert has many areas of bare sand and rock, but also some
> places with mixed stoney soil:
>
>
> how would you map this? Are we going to map the voids? Usually in an area
> like this I would expect that a map, especially one that is made from the
> people on the ground, has the features, not the un-features.
> Maybe it’s just me, but it doesn’t sound terribly exciting to map huge
> areas of un-landcover, to then cut everything out that is something, when
> you could just map the something and be done.
>
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

sent from a phone

> On 13. Jul 2020, at 22:36, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> The Atacama desert has many areas of bare sand and rock, but also some places 
> with mixed stoney soil:

how would you map this? Are we going to map the voids? Usually in an area like 
this I would expect that a map, especially one that is made from the people on 
the ground, has the features, not the un-features.
Maybe it’s just me, but it doesn’t sound terribly exciting to map huge areas of 
un-landcover, to then cut everything out that is something, when you could just 
map the something and be done.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-13 Thread Joseph Eisenberg

The Atacama desert has many areas of bare sand and rock, but also some
places with mixed stoney soil:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrishunkeler/32097822997

https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrishunkeler/46125841885/in/photostream/

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:31 AM Michael Montani 
wrote:

> Doing some wrap up:
>
>
> *> Barren sounds to me to imply nothing can grow there.Bare sounds more *
>
> *neutral and factual to me, it just says there is nothing but bare soil to
> *
> *mark the area with.Please correct if I am wrong!*
>
> For the 'barren vs bare' discussion, I would go for natural=bare_soil, not
> only for the meaning but also for a matter of consistency with the already
> existing natural=bare_rock.
>
>
> *>Even those photos show that there is some vegetation there, even though *
> *it's sparse.*
>
> *At what level of plant growth, does it stop being "bare ground"? One *
> *"plant" (tree / shrub / patch of grass etc) per sq km / 100 / 10 / 1 sq
> m?*
>
> *Maybe, instead of saying it's bare ground, we need some way of describing
> *
> *the level of ground cover eg vegetation=sparse or similar?*
>
> To me, I'm ok in considering bare_soil with some vegetation. But obviously
> not too much, otherwise I would switch to natural=scrub. Also, a
> natural=bare_soil + vegetation=sparse to me would be natural=scrub or
> natural=grassland. A (little) tree/shrub/patch every (approximately) 10 sq
> m or more seems good to me to state it's bare_soil. The photos I posted,
> have some scrub polygon surrounding the groundy area for sure.
>
> Also, I would go for bare_soil targeting silt or clay soil, loam and
> mixture humus and mineral soil. To me, all these areas don't have a current
> OSM tag correctly defining all of them, apart when inserted in an
> environmental or geological context as wetlands.
> Indeed, I wouldn't use bare_soil when a wetland can reasonably describe in
> a correct way the area, as well as a thin layer of grass (e.g. lichens in
> tundra) is covering the ground (in that case natural=grassland).
> Furthermore to me is not meaningful to specify whether a soil is mostly
> humus as, if the organic matter percentage is high, most probably
> vegetation will grow there in a while. As you may have imagined, this tag
> proposal was born mostly to map arid areas rather than general soil, but
> soil seems to be a huge gap in OSM landcover tagging.
>
> Unfortunately is very hard to retrieve on-the-ground photos in Africa, but
> I think these areas are very common in places outside the European context.
> Feel free to add photos (if you have any) at
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground#Examples
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> *Michael Montani*
> GIS Consultant, *Client Solutions Delivery Section*
> *Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies*
> United Nations Global Service Centre
> United Nations Department of Operational Support
>
> Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission:
> 158 6985
> E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org  | www.ungsc.org
>
> --
> *Da:* Joseph Eisenberg 
> *Inviato:* domenica 12 luglio 2020 21:15
> *A:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools  >
> *Oggetto:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)
>
> The link [2] to https://www.hq.nasa.gov/iwgsdi/Barren_Land.html has these
> categories:
>
> *1.2.2.2.1 Bare Exposed Rock*: Those ecosystems characterized by areas of
> bedrock exposure, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic
> material, rock glaciers, and other accumulations of rock without vegetative
> cover.
>
> This is mostly covered by natural=bare_rock or natural=scree (or
> natural=shingle) currently.
>
> *1.2.2.2.2 Beaches*: Those ecosystems along shorelines characterized by
> smooth sloping accumulations of sand and gravel. The surface is stable
> inland, but the shoreward part is subject to erosion by wind and water and
> to deposition in protected areas.
>
> This is natural=beach, or natural=wetland + wetland=tidalflat, or
> natural=shingle, possibly overlapping with water (if below the high tide
> line or high water line).
>
> *1.2.2.2.3 Dry Salt Flats*: Those ecosystems occurring on the
> flat-floored bottoms of interior desert basins that do not qualify as
> wetlands.
>
> We don't have a good tag for this, as Christoph mentioned previously,
> probably because these features are rare in Europe.
>
> *1.2.2.2.4 Mixed Barren Land*: Those regions in which a mixture of barren
> land features occurs and the dominant land use occupies less than
> two-thirds of the area. This includes, for example, a desert region where
> combin

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-13 Thread Michael Montani

Doing some wrap up:

> Barren sounds to me to imply nothing can grow there.Bare sounds more
neutral and factual to me, it just says there is nothing but bare soil to
mark the area with.Please correct if I am wrong!

For the 'barren vs bare' discussion, I would go for natural=bare_soil, not only 
for the meaning but also for a matter of consistency with the already existing 
natural=bare_rock.

>Even those photos show that there is some vegetation there, even though
it's sparse.
At what level of plant growth, does it stop being "bare ground"? One
"plant" (tree / shrub / patch of grass etc) per sq km / 100 / 10 / 1 sq m?
Maybe, instead of saying it's bare ground, we need some way of describing
the level of ground cover eg vegetation=sparse or similar?

To me, I'm ok in considering bare_soil with some vegetation. But obviously not 
too much, otherwise I would switch to natural=scrub. Also, a natural=bare_soil 
+ vegetation=sparse to me would be natural=scrub or natural=grassland. A 
(little) tree/shrub/patch every (approximately) 10 sq m or more seems good to 
me to state it's bare_soil. The photos I posted, have some scrub polygon 
surrounding the groundy area for sure.

Also, I would go for bare_soil targeting silt or clay soil, loam and mixture 
humus and mineral soil. To me, all these areas don't have a current OSM tag 
correctly defining all of them, apart when inserted in an environmental or 
geological context as wetlands.
Indeed, I wouldn't use bare_soil when a wetland can reasonably describe in a 
correct way the area, as well as a thin layer of grass (e.g. lichens in tundra) 
is covering the ground (in that case natural=grassland).
Furthermore to me is not meaningful to specify whether a soil is mostly humus 
as, if the organic matter percentage is high, most probably vegetation will 
grow there in a while. As you may have imagined, this tag proposal was born 
mostly to map arid areas rather than general soil, but soil seems to be a huge 
gap in OSM landcover tagging.

Unfortunately is very hard to retrieve on-the-ground photos in Africa, but I 
think these areas are very common in places outside the European context. Feel 
free to add photos (if you have any) at 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground#Examples

Thanks,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>


Da: Joseph Eisenberg 
Inviato: domenica 12 luglio 2020 21:15
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

The link [2] to https://www.hq.nasa.gov/iwgsdi/Barren_Land.html has these 
categories:

1.2.2.2.1 Bare Exposed Rock: Those ecosystems characterized by areas of bedrock 
exposure, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic material, rock 
glaciers, and other accumulations of rock without vegetative cover.

This is mostly covered by natural=bare_rock or natural=scree (or 
natural=shingle) currently.

1.2.2.2.2 Beaches: Those ecosystems along shorelines characterized by smooth 
sloping accumulations of sand and gravel. The surface is stable inland, but the 
shoreward part is subject to erosion by wind and water and to deposition in 
protected areas.

This is natural=beach, or natural=wetland + wetland=tidalflat, or 
natural=shingle, possibly overlapping with water (if below the high tide line 
or high water line).

1.2.2.2.3 Dry Salt Flats: Those ecosystems occurring on the flat-floored 
bottoms of interior desert basins that do not qualify as wetlands.

We don't have a good tag for this, as Christoph mentioned previously, probably 
because these features are rare in Europe.

1.2.2.2.4 Mixed Barren Land: Those regions in which a mixture of barren land 
features occurs and the dominant land use occupies less than two-thirds of the 
area. This includes, for example, a desert region where combinations of salt 
flats, sandy areas, bare rock, surface extraction, and transitional activities 
could occur in close proximity.

We should map these areas based on the most specific area: natural=sand, 
natural=bare_rock, landuse=quarry, etc.

1.2.2.2.5 Sandy Areas Other Than Beaches: Those ecosystems composed primarily 
of dunes -- accumulations of sand transported by wind. ...

This is usually mapped as natural=sand

1.2.2.2.6 Strip Mines, Quaries, and Gravel Pits: Those regions where vegetative 
cover and overburden are removed to expose such deposits as coal, iron ore, 
limestone, and copper. This includes inactive, unreclaimed, and active strip 
mines, quarries, borrow pits, and gravel pits until other cover or use has been

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-12 Thread Joseph Eisenberg

The link [2] to https://www.hq.nasa.gov/iwgsdi/Barren_Land.html has these
categories:

*1.2.2.2.1 Bare Exposed Rock*: Those ecosystems characterized by areas of
bedrock exposure, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic
material, rock glaciers, and other accumulations of rock without vegetative
cover.

This is mostly covered by natural=bare_rock or natural=scree (or
natural=shingle) currently.

*1.2.2.2.2 Beaches*: Those ecosystems along shorelines characterized by
smooth sloping accumulations of sand and gravel. The surface is stable
inland, but the shoreward part is subject to erosion by wind and water and
to deposition in protected areas.

This is natural=beach, or natural=wetland + wetland=tidalflat, or
natural=shingle, possibly overlapping with water (if below the high tide
line or high water line).

*1.2.2.2.3 Dry Salt Flats*: Those ecosystems occurring on the flat-floored
bottoms of interior desert basins that do not qualify as wetlands.

We don't have a good tag for this, as Christoph mentioned previously,
probably because these features are rare in Europe.

*1.2.2.2.4 Mixed Barren Land*: Those regions in which a mixture of barren
land features occurs and the dominant land use occupies less than
two-thirds of the area. This includes, for example, a desert region where
combinations of salt flats, sandy areas, bare rock, surface extraction, and
transitional activities could occur in close proximity.

We should map these areas based on the most specific area: natural=sand,
natural=bare_rock, landuse=quarry, etc.

*1.2.2.2.5 Sandy Areas Other Than Beaches*: Those ecosystems composed
primarily of dunes -- accumulations of sand transported by wind. ...

This is usually mapped as natural=sand

*1.2.2.2.6 Strip Mines, Quaries, and Gravel Pits*: Those regions where
vegetative cover and overburden are removed to expose such deposits as
coal, iron ore, limestone, and copper. This includes inactive, unreclaimed,
and active strip mines, quarries, borrow pits, and gravel pits until other
cover or use has been established.

Mapped as landuse=quarry

*1.2.2.2.7 Transitional Areas*: Those regions that are in transition from
one land use activity to another. This transitional phase occurs when, for
example, forest lands are cleared for agriculture, wetlands are drained for
development, or when any type of land use ceases as areas become
temporarily bare as con- struction is planned for such future uses as
residences, shopping centers, industrial sites, or subur- ban and rural
residential subdivisions. This also includes land being altered by filling,
such as occurs in spoil dumps or sanitary landfills. (Definition Source: A
Land Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensing
Data)

This might be landuse=landfill, landuse=construction, or landuse=brownfield
in many cases. Areas where trees have been recently cleared are somewhat
debatable, if it's not certain what the area is transitioning into, but
there is landuse=meadow + meadow=transitional for areas of grass that are
transitioning into scrub or early woodland again.

So we certainly need a new tag for salt flats, and I agree that there are
some places like badlands and deserts with clay soils where we don't have
well established tags for unvegetated areas, but many types of "barren"
land can already be mapped with existing tags. That's why it's important
that new tags are precisely defined.

– Joseph Eisenberg

On Sun, Jul 12, 2020 at 10:37 AM mbranco2  wrote:

> I hope that this discussion and the related proposal wiki page will lead
> to a solution, because I found several times, mapping in Africa with HOT
> projects, "desertic lands" and I didn't find a tag for this.
>
> If we search the Internet for "barren soil", we can find a lot of
> ground-level related images.
>
> And I think that we could map such characteristic even with only imagery
> (without direct survey), because it's a "macro" feature, as is a wood or a
> scrub.
>
> Maybe images was shot in a particular season, and the soil condition is
> not always the same?
> Well, if I check several imageries and in all of them I see a "desertic
> land", I'm confident I can map that area with the tag we're talking about.
> And I think it doesn't matter if for few days a year (or few days in
> several years...) it will rain and there will be - for few days - a bit of
> vegetation: it's not an OSM mapping rule, to map the "main" characteristic
> of an item?
>
> Surely it could be useful if botanists and/or geologists could better
> specify (with more specific tags) the cause: no rain? pollution? specific
> ground-conditions such as presence of salt or sulfur?
>
> For the main tag, I think that "natural" is the right key (being already
> natural=sand/bare_rock/shingle/scree...).
> About the value, I'd prefer a botanic or geologist suggest us the best
> word.
>
> Some references:
> - "Barren vegetation" [1]  (..."Regions on the earth’s surface where soils
> are dominating the

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-12 Thread Mark Wagner

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 19:36:10 +0200
mbranco2  wrote:

> Maybe images was shot in a particular season, and the soil condition
> is not always the same?
> Well, if I check several imageries and in all of them I see a
> "desertic land", I'm confident I can map that area with the tag we're
> talking about. And I think it doesn't matter if for few days a year
> (or few days in several years...) it will rain and there will be -
> for few days - a bit of vegetation: it's not an OSM mapping rule, to
> map the "main" characteristic of an item?

You've got to be careful when doing this, since imagery dates are not
random.  For example, six out of seven local imagery options are from
early or mid summer, while the seasonal ponds don't dry up until late
summer.  (The seventh option is from peak spring flood.)

-- 
Mark

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-12 Thread Jarek Piórkowski

On Sun, 12 Jul 2020 at 13:36, mbranco2  wrote:
> ...
> And I think that we could map such characteristic even with only imagery 
> (without direct survey), because it's a "macro" feature, as is a wood or a 
> scrub.
> ...
> Surely it could be useful if botanists and/or geologists could better specify 
> (with more specific tags) the cause: no rain? pollution? specific 
> ground-conditions such as presence of salt or sulfur?
> ...
> Some references:
> - "Barren vegetation" [1]  (..."Regions on the earth’s surface where soils 
> are dominating the ecosystems with little to no plant cover are often 
> referred to as “Barren”. )
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barren_vegetation

This Wikipedia article seems to me to use "barren vegetation" to refer
to large areas covered in grasses and/or shrubs. That does not really
seem to match images in
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Ground#Examples
nor in 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground#Examples
. I would suggest the proposal needs more images to define what would
be included and what wouldn't.

--Jarek

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-12 Thread mbranco2

I hope that this discussion and the related proposal wiki page will lead to
a solution, because I found several times, mapping in Africa with HOT
projects, "desertic lands" and I didn't find a tag for this.

If we search the Internet for "barren soil", we can find a lot of
ground-level related images.

And I think that we could map such characteristic even with only imagery
(without direct survey), because it's a "macro" feature, as is a wood or a
scrub.

Maybe images was shot in a particular season, and the soil condition is not
always the same?
Well, if I check several imageries and in all of them I see a "desertic
land", I'm confident I can map that area with the tag we're talking about.
And I think it doesn't matter if for few days a year (or few days in
several years...) it will rain and there will be - for few days - a bit of
vegetation: it's not an OSM mapping rule, to map the "main" characteristic
of an item?

Surely it could be useful if botanists and/or geologists could better
specify (with more specific tags) the cause: no rain? pollution? specific
ground-conditions such as presence of salt or sulfur?

For the main tag, I think that "natural" is the right key (being already
natural=sand/bare_rock/shingle/scree...).
About the value, I'd prefer a botanic or geologist suggest us the best word.

Some references:
- "Barren vegetation" [1]  (..."Regions on the earth’s surface where soils
are dominating the ecosystems with little to no plant cover are often
referred to as “Barren”. )
- "Barren land" [2] (an old web page from NASA: "...ecosystems in which
less than one third of the area has vegetation or other cover. In general,
Barren Land has thin soil, sand, or rocks."). This web page cites "A Land
Use and Land Cover Classification System for Use with Remote Sensor Data",
a free paper you can find in Google Books too.
- "Barren soil is starving Africans" [3]

Other examples of "desertic" lands:
- Bonneville (USA) [4] (maybe some of you saw World's Fastest Indian, the
lovely movie with Anthony Hopkins :-) )
- La Leona (Patagonia) [5]

Ciao!
Marco (mbranco2 / UNGSC-mbranco2)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barren_vegetation
[2] https://www.hq.nasa.gov/iwgsdi/Barren_Land.html
[3] https://www.nature.com/news/2006/060327/full/060327-15.html
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonneville_Salt_Flats
[5] https://visitpatagonia.com.ar/en/activities/petrified-forest-la-leona/





Mail
priva di virus. www.avast.com

<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 1:34 PM Matthew Woehlke
 wrote:
> > The car park in town, is that barren?
> If it's well maintained, hopefully it is. If it's crumbling, it might
> not be! My previous residence had a paved driveway that, strictly
> speaking, was not barren.

In a wet climate like the one I inhabit, truly barren surfaces are
rare.  Just a few days ago, I spotted these beauties growing in a
crack in the pavement _on a bridge_.  No real soil anywhere about!
They were rooted in whatever wind-blown material had accumulated
between the asphalt of the cycleway and the parapet of the bridge:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ke9tv/50076407291 There are even a few
stray blades of grass taking root in the concrete.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Graeme Fitzpatrick

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 19:19, Michael Montani 
wrote:

>
> Tag: natural = bare_ground (but many other options are open to discussion).
> Description: "An area covered by soil, without any vegetation"
>

I agree that we need some way to tag areas like those in Somalia that you
posted, but I have some concerns about the definition " without *any*
vegetation"

Even those photos show that there is some vegetation there, even though
it's sparse.

At what level of plant growth, does it stop being "bare ground"? One
"plant" (tree / shrub / patch of grass etc) per sq km / 100 / 10 / 1 sq m?

Maybe, instead of saying it's bare ground, we need some way of describing
the level of ground cover eg vegetation=sparse or similar?

& while you say that it is a long-term thing, if you get decent rain, it
can change virtually (& sometimes literally!) overnight:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-07/dams-start-to-fill-after-summer-rains-in-southern-queensland/11940556

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Matthew Woehlke


On 10/07/2020 11.25, Paul Allen wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 15:41, Matthew Woehlke wrote:

On 10/07/2020 09.32, Paul Allen wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:10, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also
paved surfaces,


Ummm, not really.  Not in British English.  I'd never describe paved
surfaces as barren.  Technically, I suppose they are, but they don't
fit my mental category of barren.


As someone who desperately wishes his gravel driveway *was* barren, I'm
afraid I'm inclined to agree with Mateusz Konieczny :-).


How about the roof of your house?  Unless there's moss growing on it,
is it barren?  The road your house is on, is that barren?


My earthen roof might be barren, yes :-). (Okay, *I* don't have such a 
roof, but some people do!)



The car park in town, is that barren?
If it's well maintained, hopefully it is. If it's crumbling, it might 
not be! My previous residence had a paved driveway that, strictly 
speaking, was not barren.


It's true that such surfaces are often *implied* to be barren, and we 
may not think of typically labeling them as such, but strictly speaking, 
"barrenness" is a property that they *can*, and *don't necessarily* possess.


I think the real reason we don't typically think of roads as "barren" is 
because we think of them as existing at a different level, if that makes 
any sense. We don't think of a field with a large rock in it as "an area 
of bare rock surrounded by meadow", we think of it as "meadow, with a 
[large] rock in it". Roads and rivers are similar. By contrast, I 
*could* easily see describing a sufficient expanse of paved ground as 
"barren".


--
Matthew

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Paul Allen

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 15:41, Matthew Woehlke 
wrote:

> On 10/07/2020 09.32, Paul Allen wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:10, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> >> barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also
> paved
> >> surfaces,
> >
> > Ummm, not really.  Not in British English.  I'd never describe paved
> > surfaces as barren.  Technically, I suppose they are, but they don't
> > fit my mental category of barren.
>
> As someone who desperately wishes his gravel driveway *was* barren, I'm
> afraid I'm inclined to agree with Mateusz Konieczny :-).
>

How about the roof of your house?  Unless there's moss growing on it,
is it barren?  The road your house is on, is that barren?  The car park
in town, is that barren?  Maybe it's just my idiosyncratic view of the
world again, but "barren" implies to me that there is a reasonable
expectation that plants might grow there.

BTW, my tiny back garden has so-called ornamental gravel (my
landlord is to blame for that).  I call it "weed compost."

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Matthew Woehlke


On 10/07/2020 09.32, Paul Allen wrote:

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:10, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also paved
surfaces,


Ummm, not really.  Not in British English.  I'd never describe paved 
surfaces as barren.  Technically, I suppose they are, but they don't

fit my mental category of barren.


As someone who desperately wishes his gravel driveway *was* barren, I'm 
afraid I'm inclined to agree with Mateusz Konieczny :-).


--
Matthew

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Peter Elderson

I think bare_soil or barren_soil are ok values for bare/barren soil.

I am convinced that these areas exist, bare soil without spontaneous
vegetation, whatever causes it to remain bare for many years.

Barren sounds to me to imply nothing can grow there.Bare sounds more
neutral and factual to me, it just says there is nothing but bare soil to
mark the area with.Please correct if I am wrong!

My preference would be the direct and factual *=bare_soil

The key does not really matter as long as it's not landuse, because it is
not a use of the land.
landcover=bare_soil sounds right to me.
natural=bare_soil might exclude areas which are bare because of human
causes. But it fits in with natural=bare_rock, and it is a sort of
null-option for vegetation from rain forest through grassy plains to
nothing growing there.
surface=bare_soil is not bad, but surface is generally used as an
additional key for a main feature, not a feature in itself.

Since soil is positively what you see, I don't think it's just negatively
defined. It's soil, with an important visible characteristic that it is
bare. Soil with vegatation has its own tags, but the absence of such a tag
does not indicate that it is bare soil.

All in all, I think natural=bare_soil is the best option, and that it fills
an important gap in the mapping of Earth's surface.

Question: How sure can you be from satellite imagery or aerial photography
that an area is actually bare soil?

Best, Peter Elderson


Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 15:10 schreef Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org>:

>
>
>
> Jul 10, 2020, 15:04 by pla16...@gmail.com:
>
> I've just realized what prompted the back of my mind into writing the
> preceding paragraph.  landcover=barren (or natural=barren) seems
> to handle things nicely without worrying about soil/clay/humus
> distinctions.
>
> barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also paved
> surfaces,
> bare rock, areas with poor plant growth and many other cases
>
> as not a native speaker - natural=barren_soil seems more reasonable
> and harder to misinterpret
> (that specific combination may be horrible for grammar reasons,
> I am not a native speaker)
> ___
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Paul Allen

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 14:10, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Jul 10, 2020, 15:04 by pla16...@gmail.com:
>
> I've just realized what prompted the back of my mind into writing the
> preceding paragraph.  landcover=barren (or natural=barren) seems
> to handle things nicely without worrying about soil/clay/humus
> distinctions.
>
> barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also paved
> surfaces,
>

Ummm, not really.  Not in British English.  I'd never describe paved
surfaces
as barren.  Technically, I suppose they are, but they don't fit my mental
category of barren.

bare rock, areas with poor plant growth and many other cases
>
as not a native speaker - natural=barren_soil seems more reasonable
> and harder to misinterpret
>

It doesn't feel right to me.  Bare soil, yes.  That's soil with no plants.
Barren soil means incapable of sustaining plant life, and that is
harder to determine.

You can determine that land is barren from aerial imagery (if you
have images from different seasons and years).  You need
on-the-ground survey to determine that it's bare soil.  And I
suspect that such areas are rarely uniformly bare soil but
may have patches of clay, sand, or gravel.  Also, soil
degrades or erodes given enough time - the Sahara was
once fertile land, now it's sand.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging




Jul 10, 2020, 15:04 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> I've just realized what prompted the back of my mind into writing the
> preceding paragraph.  landcover=barren (or natural=barren) seems
> to handle things nicely without worrying about soil/clay/humus
> distinctions.
>
barren is horrible as it can be easily interpreted as including also paved 
surfaces,
bare rock, areas with poor plant growth and many other cases

as not a native speaker - natural=barren_soil seems more reasonable
and harder to misinterpret
(that specific combination may be horrible for grammar reasons,
I am not a native speaker)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Paul Allen

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 at 13:19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/7/20 9:30 pm, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, being
> a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter.
>
> To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil.
> Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year?
>
>
> Sorry to say but some soils have been so polluted combined with the
> resulting soil erosion vegetation has taken some decades to come back.
>
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenstown,_Tasmania#Ecology
>

I don't see how an area that has suffered soil erosion can be mapped as
bare soil,
I see from the Wikipedia article you cite that "[...] the erosion of the
shallow horizon
topsoil back to the harder rock profile [...]" so we'd map that as bare
rock,
wouldn't we?

I'll take this opportunity to mention that some (not you) have suggested
that bare soil might happen through lack of rainfall, which is possible.
Others have then suggested that such cases could be mapped as
desert.  Desert is an incredibly bad tag because it is not a surface,
or a land cover, or even a natural (as used in OSM), it's a CLIMATE.
Desert means a lack of precipitation (which usually results in
the land being barren.  The Sahara (hot and sandy) is a desert, but so is
arctic tundra.  Whatever we settle on for this (if we settle on something),
desert should not be the tag.

I've just realized what prompted the back of my mind into writing the
preceding paragraph.  landcover=barren (or natural=barren) seems
to handle things nicely without worrying about soil/clay/humus
distinctions.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer

sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 14:40, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> I'd imagine that pollution and erosion would result in a surface of mineral, 
> rather than organic soil;

lack of water still remains a possibility. For small areas you can also imagine 
so many people walking or driving on it that no plants make it. Or animals 
eating everything (think a pig sty or hen‘s house)

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Kevin Kenny

On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 8:19 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/7/20 9:30 pm, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
> Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, being
> a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter.
>
> To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil.
> Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year?
>
>
> Not always.
>
> Sorry to say but some soils have been so polluted combined with the
> resulting soil erosion vegetation has taken some decades to come back.
>
> See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenstown,_Tasmania#Ecology
>

I'd imagine that pollution and erosion would result in a surface of
mineral, rather than organic soil; hence the land cover would be clay,
sand, scree, or bare_rock, depending on the particle size. Even the article
you cite mentions areas eroded to bare rock.  These values are all
available for tagging a mineral surface.

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Warin

On 10/7/20 9:30 pm, Peter Elderson wrote:
Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, 
being a top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter.

To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil. 
Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year?

Not always.

Sorry to say but some soils have been so polluted combined with the 
resulting soil erosion vegetation has taken some decades to come back.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queenstown,_Tasmania#Ecology

Best, Peter Elderson

Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 12:42 schreef Michael Montani 
mailto:michael.mont...@un.org>>:

I agree it could be considered as humus. The distinction between
organic soil and humus is ambiguous according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus , but I think it is general
enough to target mostly organic soil.

Shall we consider to add this specification on the tagging? Or
would humus be considered as bare soil anyway?

Thanks

--
*Michael Montani*
GIS Consultant,/Client Solutions Delivery Section/
*Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications
Technologies*
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi|Phone: +39 0831 056985|Mobile: +39
3297193455|Intermission: 158 6985
E-mail:michael.mont...@un.org <mailto:m...@un.org>|www.ungsc.org
<http://www.ungsc.org>

*Da:* Peter Elderson mailto:pelder...@gmail.com>>
*Inviato:* venerdì 10 luglio 2020 12:02
*A:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>
*Oggetto:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)
Organic without any mineral, would you still call that soil?

Vr gr Peter Elderson

Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 11:55 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>:

sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>>
wrote:
>
> Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than
natural=bare_soil?

+1,
I also disagree that “soil can be organic or mineral”. It has
typically both, organic and mineral components, but organic
components are a hard requirement. Otherwise it would be sand,
or rock, or silt or clay or loam etc. (depending on grain size/s).

Cheers Martin

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 13:33, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil. 
> Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year? 



not if there isn’t water at all, or if it is heavily contaminated

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Michael Montani

Unfortunately I don't have photos of the terrain at the moment, but I will see 
if I can come back with some on the ground example.

For now, I put some example photos in the Talk page of the feature 
proposal<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground#Examples>
 . Feel free to leave a comment on any photo, e.g. whether or not you would it 
consider as soil. I would be also curious to know what tag would you use to map 
the ground of this kind of areas with the already existent tags.

Thanks,

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>

[cid:55088391-3951-4b49-93bf-e38fd2876f34]


Da: Christoph Hormann 
Inviato: venerdì 10 luglio 2020 12:00
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)


Independent of what i already said in

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-July/053795.html

i am always wary of tags lacking any examples for on-the-ground mapping or a 
practically locally verifiable definition.  And defining a tag negatively 
trough the lack of something (vegetation) rather than positively through 
something that can be positively observed is problematic.  We have had this 
problem with natural=desert already (which some had defined equally though the 
absence of vegetation).

Overall as it stands this does not seem likely to become a successful and 
meaningful tag.  Maybe you can show some on-the-ground examples of areas you 
think this tag is suitable and needed for and get input from the wider 
community how they would suggest to characterize and tag such areas.

--
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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Peter Elderson

Looks like humus is a component of soil. So I think soil covers it, being a
top layer consisting of mixed organic and mineral matter.

To me it is hard to imagine an area as permanently natural=bare_soil.
Wouldn't there always be some kind of vegetation within a year?


Best, Peter Elderson


Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 12:42 schreef Michael Montani :

> I agree it could be considered as humus. The distinction between organic
> soil and humus is ambiguous according to
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus , but I think it is general enough to
> target mostly organic soil.
>
> Shall we consider to add this specification on the tagging? Or would humus
> be considered as bare soil anyway?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> *Michael Montani*
> GIS Consultant, *Client Solutions Delivery Section*
> *Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies*
> United Nations Global Service Centre
> United Nations Department of Operational Support
>
> Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission:
> 158 6985
> E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org  | www.ungsc.org
>
>
>
> --
> *Da:* Peter Elderson 
> *Inviato:* venerdì 10 luglio 2020 12:02
> *A:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools  >
> *Oggetto:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)
>
> Organic without any mineral, would you still call that soil?
>
> Vr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 11:55 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil?
>
>
> +1,
> I also disagree that “soil can be organic or mineral”. It has typically
> both, organic and mineral components, but organic components are a hard
> requirement. Otherwise it would be sand, or rock, or silt or clay or loam
> etc. (depending on grain size/s).
>
> 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
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Michael Montani

I agree it could be considered as humus. The distinction between organic soil 
and humus is ambiguous according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus , but I 
think it is general enough to target mostly organic soil.

Shall we consider to add this specification on the tagging? Or would humus be 
considered as bare soil anyway?

Thanks

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org<mailto:m...@un.org> | 
www.ungsc.org<http://www.ungsc.org>

[cid:072fe9f2-17da-426c-b4c6-c25f4370d75b]


Da: Peter Elderson 
Inviato: venerdì 10 luglio 2020 12:02
A: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
Oggetto: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

Organic without any mineral, would you still call that soil?

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 11:55 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>:


sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
> mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org>> wrote:
>
> Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil?


+1,
I also disagree that “soil can be organic or mineral”. It has typically both, 
organic and mineral components, but organic components are a hard requirement. 
Otherwise it would be sand, or rock, or silt or clay or loam etc. (depending on 
grain size/s).

Cheers Martin



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 12:05, Peter Elderson  wrote:
> 
> Organic without any mineral, would you still call that soil? 


I’d call it humus, not sure whether the term soil can apply or not, I am not a 
native English speaker.

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Peter Elderson

Organic without any mineral, would you still call that soil?

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op vr 10 jul. 2020 om 11:55 schreef Martin Koppenhoefer <
dieterdre...@gmail.com>:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
> > On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
> tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> >
> > Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil?
>
>
> +1,
> I also disagree that “soil can be organic or mineral”. It has typically
> both, organic and mineral components, but organic components are a hard
> requirement. Otherwise it would be sand, or rock, or silt or clay or loam
> etc. (depending on grain size/s).
>
> 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] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Christoph Hormann


Independent of what i already said in

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-July/053795.html

i am always wary of tags lacking any examples for on-the-ground mapping or a 
practically locally verifiable definition.  And defining a tag negatively 
trough the lack of something (vegetation) rather than positively through 
something that can be positively observed is problematic.  We have had this 
problem with natural=desert already (which some had defined equally though the 
absence of vegetation).

Overall as it stands this does not seem likely to become a successful and 
meaningful tag.  Maybe you can show some on-the-ground examples of areas you 
think this tag is suitable and needed for and get input from the wider 
community how they would suggest to characterize and tag such areas.

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

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer



sent from a phone

> On 10. Jul 2020, at 11:39, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging 
>  wrote:
> 
> Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil?


+1, 
I also disagree that “soil can be organic or mineral”. It has typically both, 
organic and mineral components, but organic components are a hard requirement. 
Otherwise it would be sand, or rock, or silt or clay or loam etc. (depending on 
grain size/s).

Cheers Martin 



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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging

Why it would be natural=bare_ground rather than natural=bare_soil?

Using "ground" and defining it as "soil, not all kinds of ground" will not go 
well.

natural=bare_ground for me is clearly including also natural=bare_rock,
while natural=bare_soil would avoid this


Jul 10, 2020, 11:16 by michael.mont...@un.org:

> Dear mappers,
>  
>  after the discussion we had through the tagging ML >  "Are we mapping ground 
> on OSM?" 
> > , 
> it has been open a feature proposal to map ground on OSM.
>  
>  Tag: natural = bare_ground (but many other options are open to discussion).
>  Description: "> An area covered by soil, without any vegetation> "
>  You can find the proposal wikipage > here 
> > .
>  
>  I hope this proposal will receive as many contributions possible, thank you
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>  > Michael Montani
>  > GIS Consultant> ,>  > Client Solutions Delivery Section
>  > Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
>  > United Nations Global Service Centre
>  > United Nations Department of Operational Support
>  
>  > Brindisi>  > |>  > Phone: +39 0831 056985>  > |>  > Mobile: +39 
> 3297193455>  > |>  > Intermission: 158 6985>  
> E-mail:>  > michael.monta> ni@u> n.org >  > |>  > 
> www.ungsc.org 
>
>
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging


"meant any soil area (which can be organic or mineral" - what you mean by that?
Soil is mixture of mineral and organic material.

See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Landcover_Barren

It seems that this proposal avoid many mistakes of this very similar one, but 
reviewing
what people considered as a problem may be useful.

Jul 10, 2020, 11:16 by michael.mont...@un.org:

> Dear mappers,
>  
>  after the discussion we had through the tagging ML >  "Are we mapping ground 
> on OSM?" 
> > , 
> it has been open a feature proposal to map ground on OSM.
>  
>  Tag: natural = bare_ground (but many other options are open to discussion).
>  Description: "> An area covered by soil, without any vegetation> "
>  You can find the proposal wikipage > here 
> > .
>  
>  I hope this proposal will receive as many contributions possible, thank you
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>  > Michael Montani
>  > GIS Consultant> ,>  > Client Solutions Delivery Section
>  > Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
>  > United Nations Global Service Centre
>  > United Nations Department of Operational Support
>  
>  > Brindisi>  > |>  > Phone: +39 0831 056985>  > |>  > Mobile: +39 
> 3297193455>  > |>  > Intermission: 158 6985>  
> E-mail:>  > michael.monta> ni@u> n.org >  > |>  > 
> www.ungsc.org 
>
>
>

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

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Ground)

2020-07-10 Thread Michael Montani

Dear mappers,

after the discussion we had through the tagging ML "Are we mapping ground on 
OSM?", 
it has been open a feature proposal to map ground on OSM.

Tag: natural = bare_ground (but many other options are open to discussion).
Description: "An area covered by soil, without any vegetation"
You can find the proposal wikipage 
here.

I hope this proposal will receive as many contributions possible, thank you

--
Michael Montani
GIS Consultant, Client Solutions Delivery Section
Service for Geospatial Information and Telecommunications Technologies
United Nations Global Service Centre
United Nations Department of Operational Support

Brindisi | Phone: +39 0831 056985 | Mobile: +39 3297193455 | Intermission: 158 
6985
E-mail: michael.mont...@un.org | 
www.ungsc.org

[cid:a486ba8f-6409-4de5-bb51-0f9f079739d9]
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

50 matches

Mail list logo