These are all rendering questions that should be discussed separately
from tagging, as there can be many different map styles being created
for different purposes.
johnw wrote on 2014-09-25
Or make Highway=trunk a little brighter green, so it stands out against the
wood even more.
johnw wrote:
Or make Highway=trunk a little brighter green, so it stands out against the
wood even more.
On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:59 AM, johnw wrote:
> If we are going to use landcover=forest/wood/ to unify the meaning of "trees
> on the ground", then the current implementation of forest - the bright green
If we are going to use landcover=forest/wood/ to unify the meaning of "trees on
the ground", then the current implementation of forest - the bright green with
tree markers - should probably use the same color of "wood" green, as they are
all just a large amount of trees. The forest still uses
On 09/24/2014 01:10 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2014-09-24 18:22 GMT+02:00 John Sturdy :
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Guertin
wrote:
landcover=forest anywhere there's trees on the ground
there is already a proposal in the wiki and the key is in use:
http://taginfo.openstreet
2014-09-24 18:22 GMT+02:00 John Sturdy :
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Guertin
> wrote:
>
> > landcover=forest
> > anywhere there's trees on the ground
>
> This doesn't agree with my (British English) understanding of the
> terms; a wood can be small, but a forest is always la
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Andrew Guertin wrote:
> landcover=forest
> anywhere there's trees on the ground
This doesn't agree with my (British English) understanding of the
terms; a wood can be small, but a forest is always large. "Small" and
"large" being loosely defined, but for
2014-09-24 1:21 GMT+02:00 Greg Troxel :
> I think the right thing to do is to look to professional geography.
> There, there are two separate concepts
>
> land use: what humans do with the land
>
> land cover: what is actually there
>
+1, but I think there are even more concepts to consider.
Matthijs Melissen writes:
> On 20 August 2014 18:45, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
>> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
>
> How do you define forestry or 'managing' forests?
>
> Most forests in the Netherlands are managed by Staatsbosbeheer, the
> nation
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Andrew Guertin wrote:
> landcover=forest
> anywhere there's trees on the ground
> landuse=managed_forest
> where logging activity occurs or the forest is otherwise closely
> tended by humans
> natural=wild_forest
> forests without m
2014-08-21 22:29 GMT+02:00 Andrew Guertin :
> Personally, I think the following scheme would work well:
>
> landcover=forest
> anywhere there's trees on the ground
> landuse=managed_forest
> where logging activity occurs or the forest is otherwise closely
> tended by humans
Good proposal, Andrew.
On 21 août 2014 22:29:40 UTC+02:00, Andrew Guertin
wrote:
>On 08/20/2014 04:58 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 06:45:30PM +0100, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sorry to raise this issue again but it really does need resolving:
>>>
>>> * for ensuring
On 08/20/2014 04:58 PM, Richard Z. wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 06:45:30PM +0100, Rob Nickerson wrote:
Hi,
Sorry to raise this issue again but it really does need resolving:
* for ensuring good data; and
* to prevent forest and wood being rendered as the same thing [1]
Currently the descrip
Hi
I think there are a few reasons, but let's start with the basics:
For two things so similar it's confusing to have two separate key
values: natural & landuse. IMO both should use natural (which trees are
of course).
Any description of their management/harvesting should be put into sub
ta
On Wed, 2014-08-20 at 18:45 +0100, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
Sorry, no. Certainly in Australia and I am sure lots of other parts of
the world, the term 'forest' does not necessarily mean managed or
planted. Most fores
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Andy Mabbett
wrote:
> Who planted or manages the rain forests?
Rain forests are forests/woods with a high annual rainfall. Here in Western
Washington State, some of the rain forests are protected, i.e. Olympic
National Park, others are managed and harvested. I s
On Aug 20, 2014 6:45 PM, "Rob Nickerson" wrote:
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation
Who planted or manages the rain forests?
--
Andy Mabbett
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tag
> Il giorno 20/ago/2014, alle ore 19:45, Rob Nickerson
> ha scritto:
>
> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
isn't woodland less dense then a forest? I think a true forest needs to have
some extent in order to be a forest (e.g. for habitat reas
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 06:45:30PM +0100, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry to raise this issue again but it really does need resolving:
>
> * for ensuring good data; and
> * to prevent forest and wood being rendered as the same thing [1]
>
> Currently the descriptions in the green box on the
On 20 August 2014 18:45, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>
> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
>
>
I think for me the wording isn't quite right. For me landuse=forest is
something that has been planted for the purpose of harvesting trees.
Therefore planting t
2014-08-20 19:45 GMT+02:00 Rob Nickerson :
> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
>
> In my eyes this is pretty clear. What am I missing / why does there seem
> to be so much confusion?
>
This difference is impossible to maintain during mapping as typ
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Matthijs Melissen
wrote:
> On 20 August 2014 19:25, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Matthijs Melissen
>> wrote:
>>> How do you define forestry or 'managing' forests?
>>
>> With "commercial/industrial purpose/usage of the area"?
>
On 20.08.2014 20:30, Matthijs Melissen wrote:
> On 20 August 2014 19:24, Tobias Knerr wrote:
>> 3. This distinction feels unusual for people in countries where
>> traditional maps use other factors to distinguish different wood
>> signatures, e.g. broadleaved/needleleaved. The little pine-like ico
On 20 August 2014 19:25, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Matthijs Melissen
> wrote:
>> How do you define forestry or 'managing' forests?
>
> With "commercial/industrial purpose/usage of the area"?
Would planting forest to prevent landslides, or to provide leisure,
On 20 August 2014 19:24, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> 3. This distinction feels unusual for people in countries where
> traditional maps use other factors to distinguish different wood
> signatures, e.g. broadleaved/needleleaved. The little pine-like icons in
> the landuse areas seem somewhat confusing i
On 20.08.2014 19:45, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
>
> In my eyes this is pretty clear. What am I missing / why does there seem
> to be so much confusion?
I believe some reasons why this topic comes up repeatedly are:
1.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Matthijs Melissen
wrote:
> How do you define forestry or 'managing' forests?
With "commercial/industrial purpose/usage of the area"?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/lis
On 20 August 2014 18:45, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> Wood: Woodland with no forestry
> Forest: Managed woodland or woodland plantation.
How do you define forestry or 'managing' forests?
Most forests in the Netherlands are managed by Staatsbosbeheer, the
national forest trust.
They have as policy (at
Hi,
Sorry to raise this issue again but it really does need resolving:
* for ensuring good data; and
* to prevent forest and wood being rendered as the same thing [1]
Currently the descriptions in the green box on the right of the wiki page
(and thus those that get picked up by taginfo and other
28 matches
Mail list logo
