Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Warin]

On 20/03/19 19:38, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:

Hi,

I said the its interesting also to known what there is the area without trees. 
I don’t thinks that make sense to tag this as an area without trees but with a 
tag that specify what there is in this area.


Then specify it in detail! Do not, for example, make a new tag that combines 3 
all ready existing tags, simply use the existing tags.



Yes I remember about the fact of the key natural.


Good.



Best,
Lorenzo


Il giorno 20 mar 2019, alle ore 09:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

On 20/03/19 18:54, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:


Hi Giovanni,

We thinks that it also important understand if the area is without vegetation 
because becomes a cultivated land, an artificial area or the trees are just 
cutted for wood and so some year after they will appear again. For this reason 
we thinks that is interesting to understand also what there is in the are 
without trees.


An area without trees will not have a tag for trees. An area that is not mapped 
will look like there are no trees.

Map the trees and you then know both the area of trees and the area without 
trees. You do not need a special tag to say there are no trees.

PS the OSM key 'natural' applies to both 'natural' and 'unnatural' areas!

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural

key 'natural' OSM definition: "Used to describe natural physical land features, 
including ones that have been modified by humans."


___
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] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Hi,

a. If the object of the research is just to map deforestation, you only need to 
map trees. You also need 100% coverage of all tree areas. You do not need to 
map "no landcover".

b. If the object is to map deforestation AND what replaces the trees, you need 
to map the replacing landcovers as well, and you need 100% coverage of those. 
If there is a landcover other than trees but no detail, a general landcover is 
needed. If it is done like that, you do not need to map "no landcover".


The secondo is more our idea. I never said that we want to map “no landcover”.

c. If I did a project like this, I would want to map 100% of the target area, 
to make sure all areas have been processed. In that case I would want to map 
"no landcover" as opposed to "not mapped yet". Alternatively, I would mark 
areas with a separate tag as "not yet included in the project".

d. In all cases, other mappers can and will alter the tagging if and when they 
see fit.


There is no problem if people modify and improve our classification with a 
survey, is the best advantages to be a community.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 20 mrt. 2019 om 09:26 schreef Warin 
<61sundow...@gmail.com>:
On 20/03/19 18:54, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:

> Hi Giovanni,
>
> We thinks that it also important understand if the area is without vegetation 
> because becomes a cultivated land, an artificial area or the trees are just 
> cutted for wood and so some year after they will appear again. For this 
> reason we thinks that is interesting to understand also what there is in the 
> are without trees.
>
An area without trees will not have a tag for trees. An area that is not mapped 
will look like there are no trees.

Map the trees and you then know both the area of trees and the area without 
trees. You do not need a special tag to say there are no trees.

PS the OSM key 'natural' applies to both 'natural' and 'unnatural' areas!

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural

key 'natural' OSM definition: "Used to describe natural physical land features, 
including ones that have been modified by humans."


___
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] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Peter Elderson]

a. If the object of the research is just to map deforestation, you only
need to map trees. You also need 100% coverage of all tree areas. You do
not need to map "no landcover".

b. If the object is to map deforestation AND what replaces the trees, you
need to map the replacing landcovers as well, and you need 100% coverage of
those. If there is a landcover other than trees but no detail, a general
landcover is needed. If it is done like that, you do not need to map "no
landcover".

c. If I did a project like this, I would want to map 100% of the target
area, to make sure all areas have been processed. In that case I would want
to map "no landcover" as opposed to "not mapped yet". Alternatively, I
would mark areas with a separate tag as "not yet included in the project".

d. In all cases, other mappers can and will alter the tagging if and when
they see fit.

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op wo 20 mrt. 2019 om 09:26 schreef Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com>:

> On 20/03/19 18:54, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:
>
> > Hi Giovanni,
> >
> > We thinks that it also important understand if the area is without
> vegetation because becomes a cultivated land, an artificial area or the
> trees are just cutted for wood and so some year after they will appear
> again. For this reason we thinks that is interesting to understand also
> what there is in the are without trees.
> >
> An area without trees will not have a tag for trees. An area that is not
> mapped will look like there are no trees.
>
> Map the trees and you then know both the area of trees and the area
> without trees. You do not need a special tag to say there are no trees.
>
> PS the OSM key 'natural' applies to both 'natural' and 'unnatural' areas!
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural
>
> key 'natural' OSM definition: "Used to describe natural physical land
> features, including ones that have been modified by humans."
>
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Hi,

I said the its interesting also to known what there is the area without trees. 
I don’t thinks that make sense to tag this as an area without trees but with a 
tag that specify what there is in this area.

Yes I remember about the fact of the key natural.

Best,
Lorenzo

> Il giorno 20 mar 2019, alle ore 09:25, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha 
> scritto:
> 
> On 20/03/19 18:54, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:
> 
>> Hi Giovanni,
>> 
>> We thinks that it also important understand if the area is without 
>> vegetation because becomes a cultivated land, an artificial area or the 
>> trees are just cutted for wood and so some year after they will appear 
>> again. For this reason we thinks that is interesting to understand also what 
>> there is in the are without trees.
>> 
> An area without trees will not have a tag for trees. An area that is not 
> mapped will look like there are no trees.
> 
> Map the trees and you then know both the area of trees and the area without 
> trees. You do not need a special tag to say there are no trees.
> 
> PS the OSM key 'natural' applies to both 'natural' and 'unnatural' areas!
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural
> 
> key 'natural' OSM definition: "Used to describe natural physical land 
> features, including ones that have been modified by humans."
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Warin]

On 20/03/19 18:54, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:


Hi Giovanni,

We thinks that it also important understand if the area is without vegetation 
because becomes a cultivated land, an artificial area or the trees are just 
cutted for wood and so some year after they will appear again. For this reason 
we thinks that is interesting to understand also what there is in the are 
without trees.


An area without trees will not have a tag for trees. An area that is not mapped 
will look like there are no trees.

Map the trees and you then know both the area of trees and the area without 
trees. You do not need a special tag to say there are no trees.

PS the OSM key 'natural' applies to both 'natural' and 'unnatural' areas!

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural

key 'natural' OSM definition: "Used to describe natural physical land features, 
including ones that have been modified by humans."


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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Hi Giovanni,

We thinks that it also important understand if the area is without vegetation 
because becomes a cultivated land, an artificial area or the trees are just 
cutted for wood and so some year after they will appear again. For this reason 
we thinks that is interesting to understand also what there is in the are 
without trees.

Best,
Lorenzo

Sorry with the previous mail I was not able to send it just as a reply

> Il giorno 20 mar 2019, alle ore 00:04, Cascafico Giovanni 
>  ha scritto:
> 
> Lorenzo, 
> if your project aims to track deforestation in a timespan, IMHO you had 
> better to focus on trees only. Trying to guess which landuse is going to 
> replace trees is hard.
> 
> I'd start from an AOI entirely mapped with forest, wood or, in doubt, the 
> generic landcover=trees all of which derived from not up-to-date imagery (ie 
> Bing).
> With this baseline you can then alter polygons with fresh imagery (ie 
> sentinel2).
> 
> This implies to use OSM as an history container. It's up to you to find 
> methods to save intermediate "snapshots". You can backup AOI periodically or 
> maybe use planet diffs.
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

hi,

Thanks Joseph for the answer.

The area in which I take the examples is this 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/2.3879/-73.9050 check with digital 
globe premium imagery (N.B. please don’t map this area we will have and event 
about mapping this area)

"landcover = trees that is a tag for a wood where is not clear in which class 
have to be considered the wood if natural or maintained by humans."

Almost all woodland in the world have been modified by humans, even in
the Amazon basin. I would recommend checking the existing areas of
tagged woodland in the area, and using either landuse=forest or
natural=wood depending on the current use by local mappers.

You should also ask the Colombian mappers about this project,
especially if your group is from outside of the country. Try
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co

Ok, we can check that the main area is mapped as natural=wood so we can keep 
this tag, but also is not wrong to map them as landcover=trees because I don’t 
known that area, so after when a local expert will find the tag will change 
according to the use in this country.

"The landcover=artificial will a be a general (in the sense of the previous 
point) to map an area that is covered by buildings (residential and industrial 
area) and other man-made structures (like the quarry)"

This is not useful for Openstreetmap. If your aerial imagery is good
enough to distinguish woodland, you should also be able to clearly
distinguish a quarry from a village or town or industrial area. I
recommend using the established tags (eg landuse=quarry,
landuse=residential, landuse=industrial) or just leaving the area
untagged.


We are not forcing people to mapping general but to have the possibility that 
id I’m not sure about the tag I can be more general.


there are area without trees because they are cut and there is just land 
without also grass or zone in the middle of the forest without any trees ... I 
will put a photos on attach... area1 , area2 and area3

Area1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18uzLqVp1NbxZpZqhU9-Ydbc_K7i39Byl/view):
It would be more helpful to provide a link to the location. This one
is hard to identify without local knowledge or the ability to check
the surrounding area or different imagery options

I send the place, but zooming in and out all looks the same, is a land without 
trees or grass, just land and not rocks. And this is exactly the area for the 
tag landcover=barren


Area 2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BztdQZjn35sso20-mZVAWpEHs8D-ITPH/view)
This is a small lake with muddy water.


Which are the elements that say to you that this is a lake? I’m asking because 
we are going to map the area so these can be very useful for me. The shape? 
because is not squared? ( Thanks for this point)

Area 3 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kfRjnLH7lgozFKWmZIrqAu1TmX-P6kig/view)
It would help to zoom in closer, but there is a building at the center
and a rough road. Most of this is likely meadow, pasture or farmland,
with some areas of natural=scrub at the edges, but it would certainly
help to have local knowledge of the area to be sure.

We thinks that is possible to map also this elements even if you are not sure 
about this type so this can be a landcover=cultivated so I can map and its 
possible to see a big empty area inside the forest. Also is not needed to be in 
the middle of the forest to understand which is the exact crop cultivated or if 
it is a grass land or a meadow. The idea of a more high level tag is to solve 
this problem.

Thanks for your reply.
Best,
Lorenzo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Cascafico Giovanni]

Lorenzo,
if your project aims to track deforestation in a timespan, IMHO you had
better to focus on trees only. Trying to guess which landuse is going to
replace trees is hard.

I'd start from an AOI entirely mapped with forest, wood or, in doubt, the
generic landcover=trees all of which derived from not up-to-date imagery
(ie Bing).
With this baseline you can then alter polygons with fresh imagery (ie
sentinel2).

This implies to use OSM as an history container. It's up to you to find
methods to save intermediate "snapshots". You can backup AOI periodically
or maybe use planet diffs.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Hi,

I’m answering but I’m having some problem in sending message, sorry.

Il giorno 19 mar 2019, alle ore 15:01, Paul Allen 
mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> ha scritto:

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 10:00, Lorenzo Stucchi 
mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>> wrote:

Remember that all the ideas are related to map in the Amazonian forest an area 
where nothing is mapped and the map is empty.

The fact that nothing has yet been mapped there is not an excuse for inventing 
new tags when
other tags exist.


This is not our idea we don’t want to create new tag because the element is 
doesn’t exist like in the example in the photos.

The tag landcover=tree is still existing so we don’t have to propose

Good.  It's annoying that it doesn't yet render but it is a very good tag where 
you don't know
if the trees are natural or managed.  As somebody else pointed out, much of the 
"natural"
Amazonian woodland is the result of prior land management even if, today, it is 
no longer
managed.  Landcover=tree is what you SHOULD use if you're mapping from satellite
imagery and have no way of knowing if the trees are managed or not.  If you 
intend to
keep track of deforestation by querying the database the fact that it doesn't 
render on
standard carto isn't a problem (and if it is a problem then set up your own 
tile server with
a style that does render it).


Ok we are agree in this point, we can use the natural or landuse according to 
the rules of one country or use landcover if there are no rules available in 
the country.

it so we will propose 3 different tag landcover = cultivation

We already have a tag for this: landuse=farmland (I doubt you're going to be 
interested
in private gardens as counting towards cultivation, but there are tags for 
those, too).  In any
case, "cultivation" isn't a COVER it's a USE.  Can you buy a bag of 
"cultivation" to spread over
a patch of land?

The landuse will be also including meadow that are not always clear. The fact 
the is a cover can be justify that all the map of landcover consider it as 
landcover, like was presented in the wiki page.


- barren - artificial , like for landcover = trees that is a tag for a wood 
where is not clear in which class have to be considered the wood if natural or 
maintained by humans. In such a way the other tag will be a higher level of tag 
respect to the existing ones.

It is unclear what you're getting at and why.  The best way to map the absence 
of trees is not to
map trees there.  If you know what is actually there then map it, otherwise 
don't map anything.
As somebody else pointed out from your images, one "clearing" was actually a 
pond.  If
you know the lack of trees is a pond then map it as a pond, don't guess and 
call it "barren" or
"artificial".  If you don't know it's a pond then don't map trees there.  It 
really is that simple.

We already have tags for real, VERIFIABLE objects such as quarries.  You want a 
tag for
"I don't know what's there, but I can't see any trees, so I'll call it 
artificial”.

No this is not our sense of mapping. I saw some visible change in the land were 
say building into the forests are they residential, industrial ? so I can map 
it as a artificial and someone after can map it.

This is a problem
when what is really there is a pond.  We shouldn't map guesses (at least not 
guesses that have
absolutely no justification).

We are not guessing we can checks similar example and map them.


 This doesn’t mean that we will map in a bad way or big area so with a low 
precision in the shape of the area, but we are not sure (remaining on the 
example of the wood) if the wood is maintained or not so we will use a tag in a 
more high level to don’t map wrong.

Hahahahaha.  Most of the objections here are because your "high-level" tags ARE 
the wrong way
of doing this.

Happy to make you laugh :)


The landcover=artificial will a be a general (in the sense of the previous 
point) to map an area that is covered by buildings (residential and industrial 
area) and other man-made structures (like the quarry) this definition is from 
the nasa 
at the point 13.

If you know what it is (buildings, or residential area, or industrial area, or 
whatever) then
map it as such.  If you don't know what it is then don't map it.  You're 
calling for a tag that means
"I have no idea what this is except there are no trees" when the correct way of 
handling "I don't
know" is don't map it.  In fact, you're calling for two tags that mean "I don't 
know" except you
want one to mean "I don't know but it looks artificial" and "I don't know but 
it doesn't look artificial"
and they are both GUESSES.  If there are no trees then don't map trees.  I hate 
to have to keep
saying it, especially when so many others have already said it, but it's that 
simple.

This is not our idea I explain it before.


For some area where new start to watching at doesn’t exist any tag, there are 

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 10:00, Lorenzo Stucchi 
wrote:

>
> Remember that all the ideas are related to map in the Amazonian forest an
> area where nothing is mapped and the map is empty.
>

The fact that nothing has yet been mapped there is not an excuse for
inventing new tags when
other tags exist.

The tag landcover=tree is still existing so we don’t have to propose
>

Good.  It's annoying that it doesn't yet render but it is a very good tag
where you don't know
if the trees are natural or managed.  As somebody else pointed out, much of
the "natural"
Amazonian woodland is the result of prior land management even if, today,
it is no longer
managed.  Landcover=tree is what you SHOULD use if you're mapping from
satellite
imagery and have no way of knowing if the trees are managed or not.  If you
intend to
keep track of deforestation by querying the database the fact that it
doesn't render on
standard carto isn't a problem (and if it is a problem then set up your own
tile server with
a style that does render it).

it so we will propose 3 different tag landcover = cultivation
>

We already have a tag for this: landuse=farmland (I doubt you're going to
be interested
in private gardens as counting towards cultivation, but there are tags for
those, too).  In any
case, "cultivation" isn't a COVER it's a USE.  Can you buy a bag of
"cultivation" to spread over
a patch of land?


> - barren - artificial , like for landcover = trees that is a tag for a
> wood where is not clear in which class have to be considered the wood if
> natural or maintained by humans. In such a way the other tag will be a
> higher level of tag respect to the existing ones.
>

It is unclear what you're getting at and why.  The best way to map the
absence of trees is not to
map trees there.  If you know what is actually there then map it, otherwise
don't map anything.
As somebody else pointed out from your images, one "clearing" was actually
a pond.  If
you know the lack of trees is a pond then map it as a pond, don't guess and
call it "barren" or
"artificial".  If you don't know it's a pond then don't map trees there.
It really is that simple.

We already have tags for real, VERIFIABLE objects such as quarries.  You
want a tag for
"I don't know what's there, but I can't see any trees, so I'll call it
artificial".  This is a problem
when what is really there is a pond.  We shouldn't map guesses (at least
not guesses that have
absolutely no justification).

 This doesn’t mean that we will map in a bad way or big area so with a low
> precision in the shape of the area, but we are not sure (remaining on the
> example of the wood) if the wood is maintained or not so we will use a tag
> in a more high level to don’t map wrong.
>

Hahahahaha.  Most of the objections here are because your "high-level" tags
ARE the wrong way
of doing this.

The landcover=artificial will a be a general (in the sense of the previous
> point) to map an area that is covered by buildings (residential and
> industrial area) and other man-made structures (like the quarry) this
> definition is from the nasa
>  at
> the point 13.
>

If you know what it is (buildings, or residential area, or industrial area,
or whatever) then
map it as such.  If you don't know what it is then don't map it.  You're
calling for a tag that means
"I have no idea what this is except there are no trees" when the correct
way of handling "I don't
know" is don't map it.  In fact, you're calling for two tags that mean "I
don't know" except you
want one to mean "I don't know but it looks artificial" and "I don't know
but it doesn't look artificial"
and they are both GUESSES.  If there are no trees then don't map trees.  I
hate to have to keep
saying it, especially when so many others have already said it, but it's
that simple.

For some area where new start to watching at doesn’t exist any tag, there
> are area without trees because they are cut and there is just land without
> also grass or zone in the middle of the forest without any trees and
> nothing in some cases., I will put a photos on attach. (sorry I don’t known
> about sending photos so I put the photo on drive here the photos area1
>  ,
> area2 
>  and area3
>  )
>

The best way of handling a lack of trees is not to map trees there.  That's
it.  If  you KNOW what is
present where there are no trees then map that.  Somebody else pointed out
that your guesses
about what is present in those three images was wrong because people with
more experience
than you could correctly identify what was there.

This is STILL a bad idea, on many levels.  Maybe, just maybe, it makes
sense for your particular
needs (I doubt it) but it is a bad idea for OSM.

-- 
Paul

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> "landcover = trees that is a tag for a wood where is not clear in which class 
> have to be considered the wood if natural or maintained by humans."

Almost all woodland in the world have been modified by humans, even in
the Amazon basin. I would recommend checking the existing areas of
tagged woodland in the area, and using either landuse=forest or
natural=wood depending on the current use by local mappers.

You should also ask the Colombian mappers about this project,
especially if your group is from outside of the country. Try
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co

> "The landcover=artificial will a be a general (in the sense of the previous 
> point) to map an area that is covered by buildings (residential and 
> industrial area) and other man-made structures (like the quarry)"

This is not useful for Openstreetmap. If your aerial imagery is good
enough to distinguish woodland, you should also be able to clearly
distinguish a quarry from a village or town or industrial area. I
recommend using the established tags (eg landuse=quarry,
landuse=residential, landuse=industrial) or just leaving the area
untagged.

> there are area without trees because they are cut and there is just land 
> without also grass or zone in the middle of the forest without any trees ... 
> I will put a photos on attach... area1 , area2 and area3

Area1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18uzLqVp1NbxZpZqhU9-Ydbc_K7i39Byl/view):
It would be more helpful to provide a link to the location. This one
is hard to identify without local knowledge or the ability to check
the surrounding area or different imagery options

Area 2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BztdQZjn35sso20-mZVAWpEHs8D-ITPH/view)
This is a small lake with muddy water.

Area 3 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kfRjnLH7lgozFKWmZIrqAu1TmX-P6kig/view)
It would help to zoom in closer, but there is a building at the center
and a rough road. Most of this is likely meadow, pasture or farmland,
with some areas of natural=scrub at the edges, but it would certainly
help to have local knowledge of the area to be sure.

On 3/19/19, Lorenzo Stucchi  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Thanks for the reply and for the constructive comments, we don’t want to
> vote something that no-one will accept, it's just a waste of time, for this
> reason, we start before to talk with all of you.
>
> Remember that all the ideas are related to map in the Amazonian forest an
> area where nothing is mapped and the map is empty.
>
> There are lots of question, so I try to answer most of them, sorry I lose
> one.
>
> The tag landcover=tree is still existing so we don’t have to propose it so
> we will propose 3 different tag landcover = cultivation - barren -
> artificial , like for landcover = trees that is a tag for a wood where is
> not clear in which class have to be considered the wood if natural or
> maintained by humans. In such a way the other tag will be a higher level of
> tag respect to the existing ones. This doesn’t mean that we will map in a
> bad way or big area so with a low precision in the shape of the area, but we
> are not sure (remaining on the example of the wood) if the wood is
> maintained or not so we will use a tag in a more high level to don’t map
> wrong.
>
> Landcover doesn’t refer to natural or not natural element but its a more
> general concept, like we write in the wiki
> page:
> Land Cover (LC) is a term that describes material that covers the Earth’s
> surface. The description can range from very general (e.g. forest,
> non-forest) to the very detailed one (i.e. Broad-leaved forest, Coniferous
> forest, Mixed forest, etc).
> So now our idea is to create this very general description of the covers but
> this doesn’t meaning that the quality is bad.
>
> The landcover=artificial will a be a general (in the sense of the previous
> point) to map an area that is covered by buildings (residential and
> industrial area) and other man-made structures (like the quarry) this
> definition is from the
> nasa
> at the point 13.
>
> About the idea of the creation of the different tag like sat_landcover I
> have changed it but the correct point was that the landcover is just one and
> doesn’t depend on which way you are looking to it.
>
> For some area where new start to watching at doesn’t exist any tag, there
> are area without trees because they are cut and there is just land without
> also grass or zone in the middle of the forest without any trees and nothing
> in some cases., I will put a photos on attach. (sorry I don’t known about
> sending photos so I put the photo on drive here the photos
> area1 ,
> area2
> and
> area3 )
>
> Best,
> 

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Hi all,

Thanks for the reply and for the constructive comments, we don’t want to vote 
something that no-one will accept, it's just a waste of time, for this reason, 
we start before to talk with all of you.

Remember that all the ideas are related to map in the Amazonian forest an area 
where nothing is mapped and the map is empty.

There are lots of question, so I try to answer most of them, sorry I lose one.

The tag landcover=tree is still existing so we don’t have to propose it so we 
will propose 3 different tag landcover = cultivation - barren - artificial , 
like for landcover = trees that is a tag for a wood where is not clear in which 
class have to be considered the wood if natural or maintained by humans. In 
such a way the other tag will be a higher level of tag respect to the existing 
ones. This doesn’t mean that we will map in a bad way or big area so with a low 
precision in the shape of the area, but we are not sure (remaining on the 
example of the wood) if the wood is maintained or not so we will use a tag in a 
more high level to don’t map wrong.

Landcover doesn’t refer to natural or not natural element but its a more 
general concept, like we write in the wiki 
page:
Land Cover (LC) is a term that describes material that covers the Earth’s 
surface. The description can range from very general (e.g. forest, non-forest) 
to the very detailed one (i.e. Broad-leaved forest, Coniferous forest, Mixed 
forest, etc).
So now our idea is to create this very general description of the covers but 
this doesn’t meaning that the quality is bad.

The landcover=artificial will a be a general (in the sense of the previous 
point) to map an area that is covered by buildings (residential and industrial 
area) and other man-made structures (like the quarry) this definition is from 
the nasa 
at the point 13.

About the idea of the creation of the different tag like sat_landcover I have 
changed it but the correct point was that the landcover is just one and doesn’t 
depend on which way you are looking to it.

For some area where new start to watching at doesn’t exist any tag, there are 
area without trees because they are cut and there is just land without also 
grass or zone in the middle of the forest without any trees and nothing in some 
cases., I will put a photos on attach. (sorry I don’t known about sending 
photos so I put the photo on drive here the photos 
area1 , 
area2 and 
area3 )

Best,
Lorenzo

Il giorno 19 mar 2019, alle ore 07:53, Peter Elderson 
mailto:pelder...@gmail.com>> ha scritto:


I like the project to map deforestation over time, and I think OSM can be used. 
I also think OSM can profit from the data. However, as I have said before, OSM 
mappers have a different viewpoint: mapping whats's there now, as seen on the 
ground, as detailed as possible. And they have made a mess of tagging, using 
landuse, natural, and other keys to tag what's on the ground and what the land 
is used for, and landcover has been added but is not rendered.

I repeat, the best way is to use a different key for this purpose (landcover as 
seen from above).  You can then use an existing classification, no compromise, 
with a clear meaning.

You will have to create your own rendering to get it mapped. I'm told that is 
not difficult, but you'll need some resources and expertise.

You will have to store a copy of the OSM database (or an extract) after each 
mapping stint, to feed a history-flow rendering tool. There are existing GIS 
tools for that, I have given one example and someone else gave an OSM-based one.

The actual data in the current OSM map may help mappers to enter, update or 
verify the mapping of landcover in the regular OSM tags. If I were you, I would 
leave that up to them. I for one would be very interested to compare your data 
against the current landcover mapping of The Netherlands. For deforestation, 
sure, but more so for urbanization.

If you push different use of current tags, mappers will turn against it, revert 
your changes, and your project will fail.

Fr gr Peter Elderson

__
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] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Peter Elderson]

I like the project to map deforestation over time, and I think OSM can be
used. I also think OSM can profit from the data. However, as I have said
before, OSM mappers have a different viewpoint: mapping whats's there now,
as seen on the ground, as detailed as possible. And they have made a mess
of tagging, using landuse, natural, and other keys to tag what's on the
ground and what the land is used for, and landcover has been added but is
not rendered.

I repeat, the best way is to use a different key for this purpose
(landcover as seen from above).  You can then use an existing
classification, no compromise, with a clear meaning.

You will have to create your own rendering to get it mapped. I'm told that
is not difficult, but you'll need some resources and expertise.

You will have to store a copy of the OSM database (or an extract) after
each mapping stint, to feed a history-flow rendering tool. There are
existing GIS tools for that, I have given one example and someone else gave
an OSM-based one.

The actual data in the current OSM map may help mappers to enter, update or
verify the mapping of landcover in the regular OSM tags. If I were you, I
would leave that up to them. I for one would be very interested to compare
your data against the current landcover mapping of The Netherlands. For
deforestation, sure, but more so for urbanization.

If you push different use of current tags, mappers will turn against it,
revert your changes, and your project will fail.

Fr gr Peter Elderson

__
> 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] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Warin]

On 19/03/19 11:27, marc marc wrote:


Le 19.03.19 à 00:25, Warin a écrit :

On 19/03/19 10:14, marc marc wrote:

Le 18.03.19 à 23:46, Warin a écrit :

landcover=artificial .. does not say what is there.

this one doesn't look wrong.
it is a category of several landcover (asphalt, concrete, ...)

Err the proposal is landcover=artificial for areas that are mining areas
(landuse=quarry), housing areas (landuse=residential) and industrial
areas (landuse=industrial).

that's why I took the time to describe what a correct meaning
of landcover=artificial could be.


Are you supporting the proposal for landcover=artificial for areas that are 
mining areas (landuse=quarry), housing areas (landuse=residential) and 
industrial areas (landuse=industrial)??? Because that is what someone could be 
thinking from the comments.



practical example : industrial wastelands that have a few square meters
of concrete, a few square meters of asphalt, some metal plate...
I have no interest in making an object for every different surface but I
may still want to to describe that this part of the landcover is
artificial and that this part of the ground is of wild vegetation type.


OK, but I would strongly object to landcover=artificial for areas that are 
mining areas (landuse=quarry), housing areas (landuse=residential) and 
industrial areas (landuse=industrial)



Other concrete use: some municipalities charge a variable fee for water
collection depending on whether the landcover is artificial or not.
Calculate the artificialisation index is currently impossible given the
absence of generic tags by category (not everyone necessarily wants to
split a landuse=residential into a few square meter of "vegetable
garden", a few square meter of flower, 10m2 of lawn, 5m2 of bush, 1m2 of
clay, grass, a terrace (whose coverings are sometimes so "imitation"
that you are very lucky to be mistaken in trying to inform the ultra
precise type... e. g. concrete imitation wood)...


? "not for OSM":) Joke.
Good Luck with that. Not something I would map.


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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[marc marc]

Le 19.03.19 à 00:25, Warin a écrit :
> On 19/03/19 10:14, marc marc wrote:
>> Le 18.03.19 à 23:46, Warin a écrit :
>>> landcover=artificial .. does not say what is there.
>> this one doesn't look wrong.
>> it is a category of several landcover (asphalt, concrete, ...)
> 
> Err the proposal is landcover=artificial for areas that are mining areas 
> (landuse=quarry), housing areas (landuse=residential) and industrial 
> areas (landuse=industrial).

that's why I took the time to describe what a correct meaning
of landcover=artificial could be.

practical example : industrial wastelands that have a few square meters 
of concrete, a few square meters of asphalt, some metal plate...
I have no interest in making an object for every different surface but I 
may still want to to describe that this part of the landcover is 
artificial and that this part of the ground is of wild vegetation type.

Other concrete use: some municipalities charge a variable fee for water 
collection depending on whether the landcover is artificial or not. 
Calculate the artificialisation index is currently impossible given the 
absence of generic tags by category (not everyone necessarily wants to 
split a landuse=residential into a few square meter of "vegetable 
garden", a few square meter of flower, 10m2 of lawn, 5m2 of bush, 1m2 of 
clay, grass, a terrace (whose coverings are sometimes so "imitation" 
that you are very lucky to be mistaken in trying to inform the ultra 
precise type... e. g. concrete imitation wood)...

We do have highway=road and there is no majority opinion to request 
their removal because it is unclear until someone has been there to make 
a choice of a more precise value
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 23:37, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19/03/19 10:26, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>
> Except I'd have said they were serious doubts, along the lines of "DON'T
> DO THAT!"
>
> But let him put it to a vote, if he wants to.  It will be amusing.
>
>
> Not amusing.
>

I have to disagree with you there.  Given that he interpreted people
telling him his ideas
were sub-optimal, imagine the surprise he'll get from the result of the
vote.  Yeah, it's
slapstick humour, watching the clown slip on the banana skin even after
everyone kept
warning him about it, but that won't stop it being funny.

'We' should be encouraging .. good if not better tagging.
>

We tried.  It didn't have any result.   He thinks everyone likes his
ideas.  There isn't much left
to do but laugh.  Maybe he'll wonder why everyone is laughing at him and
realize his error,
but I expect he'll ignore an overwhelming vote of disapproval, interpret it
as a go-ahead and
fill the database with garbage tags until the DWG slap him down.

Or maybe, just maybe, recent comments here will cause him to think again.
"Watch out
for that banana skin."

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Warin]

On 19/03/19 10:26, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 23:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
mailto:graemefi...@gmail.com>> wrote:




On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 20:34, Lorenzo Stucchi
mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>>
wrote:


Since no more doubts were presented


I'm sorry, but I think every post in reply to your proposal has
raised doubts,


+ 1

Except I'd have said they were serious doubts, along the lines of 
"DON'T DO THAT!"


But let him put it to a vote, if he wants to.  It will be amusing.


Not amusing.

'We' should be encouraging .. good if not better tagging.

For the deforestation project OSM could be usefull. But there needs to 
be some acceptance that OSM information is more detailed that what is 
wanted so there will need to be some adjustments on the project side to 
accept and make contributions to OSM data. If that is too much work load 
then simply taking OSM data and making their own data base might be 
there way forward.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 23:18, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 20:34, Lorenzo Stucchi 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Since no more doubts were presented
>>
>
> I'm sorry, but I think every post in reply to your proposal has raised
> doubts,
>

+ 1

Except I'd have said they were serious doubts, along the lines of "DON'T DO
THAT!"

But let him put it to a vote, if he wants to.  It will be amusing.

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Warin]

On 19/03/19 10:14, marc marc wrote:

Le 18.03.19 à 23:46, Warin a écrit :

landcover=artificial .. does not say what is there.

this one doesn't look wrong.
it is a category of several landcover (asphalt, concrete, ...)


Err the proposal is landcover=artificial for areas that are mining areas 
(landuse=quarry), housing areas (landuse=residential) and industrial 
areas (landuse=industrial).


Not about asphalt, concrete - not that detailed!

Think easy broad brush mapping from satellite imagery.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/PoliMappers/mapping_deforestation



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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Andy Townsend]

On 18/03/2019 23:17, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:



On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 20:34, Lorenzo Stucchi 
mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>> wrote:


Hi all,

Since no more doubts were presented


I'm sorry, but I think every post in reply to your proposal has raised 
doubts, primarily pointing out that you're creating new tags rather 
than using existing ones, apparently to make it easier for yourself, 
rather than OSM mappers in general; & that OSM is not really what you 
need to produce the results you're apparently looking for.



I'd have to agree with Graeme here.  For all of the reasons that have 
been already raised, OSM probably isn't the best place for you to run 
your project.


That said, if you want to map what is there as well as what is not, then 
it would be helpful to update OSM in parallel with each "deforestation 
recording session".


Best Regards,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 09:15, marc marc  wrote:

>
> this one doesn't look wrong.
> it is a category of several landcover (asphalt, concrete, ...)
>

Plus residential / commercial / industrial areas, highways / roads of any
sort, railways etc etc.

Would definitely make for much easier mapping to just say that town is
landcover=artificial & leave it at that, but hardly meets the usual degree
of OSm accuracy! :-)

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 at 20:34, Lorenzo Stucchi 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Since no more doubts were presented
>

I'm sorry, but I think every post in reply to your proposal has raised
doubts, primarily pointing out that you're creating new tags rather than
using existing ones, apparently to make it easier for yourself, rather than
OSM mappers in general; & that OSM is not really what you need to produce
the results you're apparently looking for.

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[marc marc]

Le 18.03.19 à 23:46, Warin a écrit :
> landcover=artificial .. does not say what is there.

this one doesn't look wrong.
it is a category of several landcover (asphalt, concrete, ...)
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Warin]

On 18/03/19 21:32, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:

Hi all,

Since no more doubts were presented we can think to propose this tag.

Should be better to have 4 different tag proposal one for every 
different landcover, one just one considering that are all connected 
and there are just the key landcover and 4 different value.


Which idea is the best for the proposal?

4 different.

I will be voting against most of it.

In particular

landcover=cultivation.. it is not a land cover but a human activity. 
There is an existing OSM tag of landuse=farmland that looks to me to be 
what is being mapped.


landcover=barren .. does not say what is there. And the proposal states 
3 'equivalent' tags that already inuse and are fairly easy to map. Why 
not use them?


landcover=artificial .. does not say what is there.


For the deforestation the above do not contribute to the documentation 
of the existence of trees so they have no impact on the deforestation 
itself. They may contribute to theorising on the causes of deforestation.
I think these tags are simply to ease the task, to make it easier ... 
OSM is not about easier, it is about mapping.




Best,
Lorenzo

Il giorno 16 mar 2019, alle ore 09:07, Lorenzo Stucchi 
mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>> ha 
scritto:


Hi,

The idea is for sure to check the date of the imagery and map when 
new imagery are available and we can consider also the time step 
between the different satellite imagery.


The fact that some contributor modify the data is not a problem 
because they will done adding new information and this is just an 
improvement in the data.


Think like they are highway, I can’t known what is the type of the 
highway but I can cleary see that its a road, so I can map it as 
highway=road with all the problem of this case. But un other user 
with better knowledge can identify which type of highway.
In a similar way there is just a different structure of 
classification, and when better imagery or generally better info are 
available the tag landcover will be improved with the more detailed tag.


For what regards the history I’m agree with Martin.

Best,
Lorenzo


Il giorno 15 mar 2019, alle ore 08:32, Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> ha 
scritto:


> “The idea is to have mapathon in

> different time, when new imagery are

> available and after check what

> changed searching in the database


In this case you only need to map the area of woodland or forest 
now, and it’s no problem to leave other landuse and natural areas 
unmapped.


But it may be difficult to use the OSM database for checking changes 
over time, if you would like scientific, publishable results.


To properly compare the current woodland area with the area in a 
couple of years, you will need to make sure that the aerial imagery 
that you use now is all from the same year.


Then, when you repeat the project in 1 or 2 years, you need to have 
new imagery from around the same time, and you should map the 
woodland or forested areas using the same standard and methods as 
they first time. This will be easiest if you remap everything from 
scratch the second time as well.


If you try to use the OSM database both times, you may find that 
other mappers have changed things in the meantime. Perhaps they have 
changed some of your landuse=forest to natural=wetland 
wetland=mangrove, because they know the area better. Perhaps they 
have mapped a new palm
oil plantation based on local information, but it isn’t visible in 
the aerial imagery. How will you deal with such changes?


So it is great to add the forest or wood areas to OSM right now 
based on the latest aerial imager.


But you should plan to keep your own copy of the database to compare 
with and edit in the future. If you do this right it could be 
professionally-quality data for environmental research, but that 
means you need to keep a copy of the data that won’t change, and use 
that for comparison in the future.


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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage proposal

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Hi all,

Since no more doubts were presented we can think to propose this tag.

Should be better to have 4 different tag proposal one for every different 
landcover, one just one considering that are all connected and there are just 
the key landcover and 4 different value.

Which idea is the best for the proposal?

Best,
Lorenzo

Il giorno 16 mar 2019, alle ore 09:07, Lorenzo Stucchi 
mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>> ha scritto:

Hi,

The idea is for sure to check the date of the imagery and map when new imagery 
are available and we can consider also the time step between the different 
satellite imagery.

The fact that some contributor modify the data is not a problem because they 
will done adding new information and this is just an improvement in the data.

Think like they are highway, I can’t known what is the type of the highway but 
I can cleary see that its a road, so I can map it as highway=road with all the 
problem of this case. But un other user with better knowledge can identify 
which type of highway.
In a similar way there is just a different structure of classification, and 
when better imagery or generally better info are available the tag landcover 
will be improved with the more detailed tag.

For what regards the history I’m agree with Martin.

Best,
Lorenzo


Il giorno 15 mar 2019, alle ore 08:32, Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> ha scritto:

> “The idea is to have mapathon in
> different time, when new imagery are
> available and after check what
> changed searching in the database

In this case you only need to map the area of woodland or forest now, and it’s 
no problem to leave other landuse and natural areas unmapped.

But it may be difficult to use the OSM database for checking changes over time, 
if you would like scientific, publishable results.

To properly compare the current woodland area with the area in a couple of 
years, you will need to make sure that the aerial imagery that you use now is 
all from the same year.

Then, when you repeat the project in 1 or 2 years, you need to have new imagery 
from around the same time, and you should map the woodland or forested areas 
using the same standard and methods as they first time. This will be easiest if 
you remap everything from scratch the second time as well.

If you try to use the OSM database both times, you may find that other mappers 
have changed things in the meantime. Perhaps they have changed some of your 
landuse=forest to natural=wetland wetland=mangrove, because they know the area 
better. Perhaps they have mapped a new palm
oil plantation based on local information, but it isn’t visible in the aerial 
imagery. How will you deal with such changes?

So it is great to add the forest or wood areas to OSM right now based on the 
latest aerial imager.

But you should plan to keep your own copy of the database to compare with and 
edit in the future. If you do this right it could be professionally-quality 
data for environmental research, but that means you need to keep a copy of the 
data that won’t change, and use that for comparison in the future.

___
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] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Hi,

The idea is for sure to check the date of the imagery and map when new imagery 
are available and we can consider also the time step between the different 
satellite imagery.

The fact that some contributor modify the data is not a problem because they 
will done adding new information and this is just an improvement in the data.

Think like they are highway, I can’t known what is the type of the highway but 
I can cleary see that its a road, so I can map it as highway=road with all the 
problem of this case. But un other user with better knowledge can identify 
which type of highway.
In a similar way there is just a different structure of classification, and 
when better imagery or generally better info are available the tag landcover 
will be improved with the more detailed tag.

For what regards the history I’m agree with Martin.

Best,
Lorenzo


Il giorno 15 mar 2019, alle ore 08:32, Joseph Eisenberg 
mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> ha scritto:

> “The idea is to have mapathon in
> different time, when new imagery are
> available and after check what
> changed searching in the database

In this case you only need to map the area of woodland or forest now, and it’s 
no problem to leave other landuse and natural areas unmapped.

But it may be difficult to use the OSM database for checking changes over time, 
if you would like scientific, publishable results.

To properly compare the current woodland area with the area in a couple of 
years, you will need to make sure that the aerial imagery that you use now is 
all from the same year.

Then, when you repeat the project in 1 or 2 years, you need to have new imagery 
from around the same time, and you should map the woodland or forested areas 
using the same standard and methods as they first time. This will be easiest if 
you remap everything from scratch the second time as well.

If you try to use the OSM database both times, you may find that other mappers 
have changed things in the meantime. Perhaps they have changed some of your 
landuse=forest to natural=wetland wetland=mangrove, because they know the area 
better. Perhaps they have mapped a new palm
oil plantation based on local information, but it isn’t visible in the aerial 
imagery. How will you deal with such changes?

So it is great to add the forest or wood areas to OSM right now based on the 
latest aerial imager.

But you should plan to keep your own copy of the database to compare with and 
edit in the future. If you do this right it could be professionally-quality 
data for environmental research, but that means you need to keep a copy of the 
data that won’t change, and use that for comparison in the future.

___
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] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 15. Mar 2019, at 08:32, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> But you should plan to keep your own copy of the database to compare with and 
> edit in the future.


the OSM db contains all the history as well, not just the current state. What 
you often cannot tell from the data though, is the reason for an edit: have the 
changes been applied to follow changes in the real world, or were there simply 
errors or imprecisions before which have now been fixed, without any change to 
the real situation.

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Joseph Eisenberg]

>
> > “The idea is to have mapathon in
>
> different time, when new imagery are
>
> available and after check what
>
> changed searching in the database
>

In this case you only need to map the area of woodland or forest now, and
it’s no problem to leave other landuse and natural areas unmapped.

But it may be difficult to use the OSM database for checking changes over
time, if you would like scientific, publishable results.

To properly compare the current woodland area with the area in a couple of
years, you will need to make sure that the aerial imagery that you use now
is all from the same year.

Then, when you repeat the project in 1 or 2 years, you need to have new
imagery from around the same time, and you should map the woodland or
forested areas using the same standard and methods as they first time. This
will be easiest if you remap everything from scratch the second time as
well.

If you try to use the OSM database both times, you may find that other
mappers have changed things in the meantime. Perhaps they have changed some
of your landuse=forest to natural=wetland wetland=mangrove, because they
know the area better. Perhaps they have mapped a new palm
oil plantation based on local information, but it isn’t visible in the
aerial imagery. How will you deal with such changes?

So it is great to add the forest or wood areas to OSM right now based on
the latest aerial imager.

But you should plan to keep your own copy of the database to compare with
and edit in the future. If you do this right it could be
professionally-quality data for environmental research, but that means you
need to keep a copy of the data that won’t change, and use that for
comparison in the future.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Hi,

We don’t propose anything related with time because we think that this 
information can came with the historical evolution of the area, so this 
information is inside the history of every polygons.

The idea is to have mapathon in different time, when new imagery are available 
and after check what is changed searching in the all database.

I hope that we explain this temporal “problem”.

Best,
Lorenzo Stucchi

Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 23:40, Warin 
<61sundow...@gmail.com> ha scritto:

On 14/03/19 06:49, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:
Hi all,

After some discussion about the idea of this project, we think to better capt 
all the idea to create a wiki page with the purpose of better understand the 
problem and find the better way to tag this situation.

So we create a wiki page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/PoliMappers/mapping_deforestation where is 
possible to discuss these thematics, let us known your idea.


I think what your trying to map is the reduction of trees over time 
(deforestation).

Open Historic Map is the place to map what has happened over time. Here you can 
map the presence of trees at a particular point in time from satellite imagery 
at that time. This can give you the 'deforestation' information without trying 
to map 'here is a lack of trees'.



Open Street Map is the present, not the past. So OSM is not the place to map 
the change in tree cover.While some may be happy with mapping an area with a 
tag that says 'here is a lack of trees', that lack of trees does not tell you 
that the area was covered by trees at some time in the past. An example would 
be an area coved by rock, an old village area. I think what you are after is 
that change in tree cover, and that is not mapped in OSM.


___
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] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Warin]

On 14/03/19 06:49, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:

Hi all,

After some discussion about the idea of this project, we think to 
better capt all the idea to create a wiki page with the purpose of 
better understand the problem and find the better way to tag this 
situation.


So we create a wiki page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/PoliMappers/mapping_deforestation where 
is possible to discuss these thematics, let us known your idea.




I think what your trying to map is the reduction of trees over time 
(deforestation).


Open Historic Map is the place to map what has happened over time. Here 
you can map the presence of trees at a particular point in time from 
satellite imagery at that time. This can give you the 'deforestation' 
information without trying to map 'here is a lack of trees'.




Open Street Map is the present, not the past. So OSM is not the place to 
map the change in tree cover.While some may be happy with mapping an 
area with a tag that says 'here is a lack of trees', that lack of trees 
does not tell you that the area was covered by trees at some time in the 
past. An example would be an area coved by rock, an old village area. I 
think what you are after is that change in tree cover, and that is not 
mapped in OSM.



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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 07:30, Tod Fitch  wrote:

>
> > On Mar 14, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:
> >
>
> > I just saw two replies to Lorenzo that were suggesting that his source
> > data were unmappable because they didn't support a sufficiently
> > detailed taxonomy of landcover, and I wanted to point out that "no
> > trees here" is useful information that should be distinguished from
> > "we haven't yet looked to see if there are trees here."
> >
> > "was:landcover=trees" is not something that I favour, because there's
> > also the useful combination, "no trees in the old imagery, and no
> > trees in the current imagery either", still without information about
> > whether one is looking at grass, scrub, heath, meadow, wetland or
> > farmland, which can't always be distinguished in orthoimages.  I
> > suppose that the "no:landcover=trees" COULD work, but I don't see
> > no:*=* in wide use, and suspect that it will be controversial.
> >
>
> Why not landcover=vegetation as an equivalent to highway=road? It would
> indicate that some type of plant matter is growing on it but exactly what
> is not yet known. Once more information (field survey? low level aerial
> survey/photos?) is available then a more specific landcover could be
> applied.
>

Or for an even more general "I don't know what I'm looking at"!

landcover=undetermined / unknown?

"That particular area is covered by trees, that area over there has
buildings on it, but when I looked at this area, on this day, I couldn't
work out what the landcovering was, so someone will have to check it again"

Thanks

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[marc marc]

adding top-level categories to the landcover value is maybe
the best idea, it allow incremential mapping :
- you 'll add true value depending of your "level" and the quality
of the source
- another day another mapper may improve it.

Le 14.03.19 à 22:33, Lorenzo Stucchi a écrit :
> Hi all,
> 
> sorry I change the idea from just landcover to sat_landcover because I 
> saw it as reasonable for a draft landcover in an area for which I don’t 
> know exactly if what I’m mapping is a meadow or a cultivated land or 
> something similar, but I understand in which of the categories it fall, 
> as we explain into the wiki page.
> 
> So if you think that it's better to return back to just landcover for me 
> it’s fine.
> 
> We just want to point the problem and the importance of a theme like 
> deforestation in a big forest and his effect on climate change. But if 
> there are no data about how is possible to do that?
> 
> So from this reason, we have this proposal after reading pages of the 
> wiki trying to find the best solution to tag these elements. We don’t 
> want to create anything that can be forgotten after our event instead, 
> we think that this can be an important issue that can be taken care of 
> part of OSM community.
> 
> Any help is welcome and please try to remain focus on the starting point 
> and not diverge like in the previous thread. Sorry we care very much on 
> this project and we believe in the his importance.
> 
> Thanks Tod for this point this is what we are exactly talking about.
> 
> Best,
> Lorenzo
> 
>> Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 22:29, Tod Fitch > > ha scritto:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 14, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Kenny >> > wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM marc marc >> > wrote:
 no:landcover=trees ?
 or, as the previous landcover/imagery show tress, was:landcover=trees
>>>
>>> However you want to spell it.
>>>
>>> I just saw two replies to Lorenzo that were suggesting that his source
>>> data were unmappable because they didn't support a sufficiently
>>> detailed taxonomy of landcover, and I wanted to point out that "no
>>> trees here" is useful information that should be distinguished from
>>> "we haven't yet looked to see if there are trees here."
>>>
>>> "was:landcover=trees" is not something that I favour, because there's
>>> also the useful combination, "no trees in the old imagery, and no
>>> trees in the current imagery either", still without information about
>>> whether one is looking at grass, scrub, heath, meadow, wetland or
>>> farmland, which can't always be distinguished in orthoimages.  I
>>> suppose that the "no:landcover=trees" COULD work, but I don't see
>>> no:*=* in wide use, and suspect that it will be controversial.
>>>
>>
>> Why not landcover=vegetation as an equivalent to highway=road? It 
>> would indicate that some type of plant matter is growing on it but 
>> exactly what is not yet known. Once more information (field survey? 
>> low level aerial survey/photos?) is available then a more specific 
>> landcover could be applied.
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Hi all,

sorry I change the idea from just landcover to sat_landcover because I saw it 
as reasonable for a draft landcover in an area for which I don’t know exactly 
if what I’m mapping is a meadow or a cultivated land or something similar, but 
I understand in which of the categories it fall, as we explain into the wiki 
page.

So if you think that it's better to return back to just landcover for me it’s 
fine.

We just want to point the problem and the importance of a theme like 
deforestation in a big forest and his effect on climate change. But if there 
are no data about how is possible to do that?

So from this reason, we have this proposal after reading pages of the wiki 
trying to find the best solution to tag these elements. We don’t want to create 
anything that can be forgotten after our event instead, we think that this can 
be an important issue that can be taken care of part of OSM community.

Any help is welcome and please try to remain focus on the starting point and 
not diverge like in the previous thread. Sorry we care very much on this 
project and we believe in the his importance.

Thanks Tod for this point this is what we are exactly talking about.

Best,
Lorenzo

Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 22:29, Tod Fitch 
mailto:t...@fitchdesign.com>> ha scritto:


On Mar 14, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Kenny 
mailto:kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM marc marc 
mailto:marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>> wrote:
no:landcover=trees ?
or, as the previous landcover/imagery show tress, was:landcover=trees

However you want to spell it.

I just saw two replies to Lorenzo that were suggesting that his source
data were unmappable because they didn't support a sufficiently
detailed taxonomy of landcover, and I wanted to point out that "no
trees here" is useful information that should be distinguished from
"we haven't yet looked to see if there are trees here."

"was:landcover=trees" is not something that I favour, because there's
also the useful combination, "no trees in the old imagery, and no
trees in the current imagery either", still without information about
whether one is looking at grass, scrub, heath, meadow, wetland or
farmland, which can't always be distinguished in orthoimages.  I
suppose that the "no:landcover=trees" COULD work, but I don't see
no:*=* in wide use, and suspect that it will be controversial.


Why not landcover=vegetation as an equivalent to highway=road? It would 
indicate that some type of plant matter is growing on it but exactly what is 
not yet known. Once more information (field survey? low level aerial 
survey/photos?) is available then a more specific landcover could be applied.

___
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] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Tod Fitch]

> On Mar 14, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM marc marc  wrote:
>> no:landcover=trees ?
>> or, as the previous landcover/imagery show tress, was:landcover=trees
> 
> However you want to spell it.
> 
> I just saw two replies to Lorenzo that were suggesting that his source
> data were unmappable because they didn't support a sufficiently
> detailed taxonomy of landcover, and I wanted to point out that "no
> trees here" is useful information that should be distinguished from
> "we haven't yet looked to see if there are trees here."
> 
> "was:landcover=trees" is not something that I favour, because there's
> also the useful combination, "no trees in the old imagery, and no
> trees in the current imagery either", still without information about
> whether one is looking at grass, scrub, heath, meadow, wetland or
> farmland, which can't always be distinguished in orthoimages.  I
> suppose that the "no:landcover=trees" COULD work, but I don't see
> no:*=* in wide use, and suspect that it will be controversial.
> 

Why not landcover=vegetation as an equivalent to highway=road? It would 
indicate that some type of plant matter is growing on it but exactly what is 
not yet known. Once more information (field survey? low level aerial 
survey/photos?) is available then a more specific landcover could be applied.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM marc marc  wrote:
> no:landcover=trees ?
> or, as the previous landcover/imagery show tress, was:landcover=trees

However you want to spell it.

I just saw two replies to Lorenzo that were suggesting that his source
data were unmappable because they didn't support a sufficiently
detailed taxonomy of landcover, and I wanted to point out that "no
trees here" is useful information that should be distinguished from
"we haven't yet looked to see if there are trees here."

"was:landcover=trees" is not something that I favour, because there's
also the useful combination, "no trees in the old imagery, and no
trees in the current imagery either", still without information about
whether one is looking at grass, scrub, heath, meadow, wetland or
farmland, which can't always be distinguished in orthoimages.  I
suppose that the "no:landcover=trees" COULD work, but I don't see
no:*=* in wide use, and suspect that it will be controversial.

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[marc marc]

Le 14.03.19 à 21:47, Kevin Kenny a écrit :
> there's no way to distinguish, 
> "we haven't read and mapped the imagery yet" from
> "we've mapped the imagery, and there's no forest here."

no:landcover=trees ?
or, as the previous landcover/imagery show tress, was:landcover=trees
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Kevin Kenny]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:37 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> I would advise to tag just forest landcover is satellite images are unusable 
> to tag
> other features properly and to not introduce incompatible tagging scheme just 
> because
> you really want to vectorize this specific low quality dataset.

I think there is some grain of value here.  He has a use case where he
has valid but incomplete information: "in this polygon, I don't know
what the landcover is in sufficientdetail to tag it with the existing
OSM taxonomy, but it is definitely NOT forest." Otherwise, there's no
way to distinguish, "we haven't read and mapped the imagery yet" from
"we've mapped the imagery, and there's no forest here."

When I know something about a piece of ground, I think it's reasonable
for me to want to tag what I know, without needing to do further
investigation. That's why, for instance, I object to distinguishing
power=line from power=minor_line by voltage - I may have no way of
determining that in the field, but the power line is still a landmark,
and still deserves to be mapped.

I'm not demanding that for the specific use case of 'NOT forest', that
we have to have a broadly accepted tag, but I think that it may well
be a valid reason to invoke "Any tags you like"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like. It's really
offensive to tell mappers that they can't map features because we
can't figure out how to tag them, and in many cases it comes across as
cultural insensitivity: "the data model is fine. Fix your country."

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Mar 14, 2019, 9:28 PM by lorenzostucch...@outlook.it:

> From previous messages we think to change the different tag from landcover to 
> hrg_landcover, the idea came form the professor Brovelli. Because we can 
> think every type of landcover came from a satellite and the HRGLandCover 
> (High Resolution Global Land Cover) is more related to the idea that we want 
> to propose.
>
how "High Resolution Global Land Cover" differs from regular landcover?

As far as I see there is no good reason for introducing new tagging scheme -
it will be either used in one organized editing and later forgotten or, what 
would be worse,
we will have yet another competing scheme duplicating existing ones.

I would advise to tag just forest landcover is satellite images are unusable to 
tag
other features properly and to not introduce incompatible tagging scheme just 
because
you really want to vectorize this specific low quality dataset.

And if you really, really want to vectorize this specific dataset in way 
incompatible with existing OSM
tagging then please avoid saving it in OSM database.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[marc marc]

that look like a bad idea, let's me explain with some ex
hrg_landcover for HRGLandCover
a made a survey ? surv_landcover
a use mapilary ? mpl_landcover ?
of course not... fill changeset source in stead of duplicate a tag 
depending of the source

Le 14.03.19 à 21:28, Lorenzo Stucchi a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> thanks for your ideas.
> 
>  From previous messages we think to change the different tag from 
> landcover to hrg_landcover, the idea came form the professor Brovelli. 
> Because we can think every type of landcover came from a satellite and 
> the HRGLandCover (High Resolution Global Land Cover) is more related to 
> the idea that we want to propose.
> 
> Having that idea, we think that the creation of the tag 
> org_landcover=barren can be very useful.
> 
> For what concerns the vegetation if the original sense of the two tag is 
> losted we consider the don’t create the tag.
> 
> Let us known.
> Best,
> Lorenzo
> 
>> Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 14:00, Mateusz Konieczny 
>> mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> ha scritto:
>>
>> > This can be hard to identify in large area with not optimal images
>> > so the proposal is to create the tag landcover=barren.
>>
>> If things can not be tagged from aerial images then it is better to 
>> wait for new ones
>> rather than add something like that.
>>
>> > Two types of classifications exist:
>> > natural=wood for not managed woods like for the main part of the 
>> Amazonia.
>> > landuse=forest for managed woods maintained by humans.
>>
>> both are simply used for tree-covered areas, and distinction between 
>> them is
>> either ignored or interpreted in some many ways that it is simply 
>> meaningless
>> (note many natural=wood in Europe, where it is hard to find forest not 
>> maintained by humans)
>>
>> > Also, this information partially needed a local knowledge so the 
>> more general
>> > tag used can be landcover=trees, also quite used as shown in taginfo.
>>
>> Landcover trees is a rarely used tag, with over half of use in 
>> Paraguay that is
>> result of single series of edits. It is used by tiny minority of mappers.
>>
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=forest
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=wood
>> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landcover=trees
>>
>>
>>
>> Mar 13, 2019, 8:49 PM by lorenzostucch...@outlook.it 
>> :
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After some discussion about the idea of this project, we think to
>> better capt all the idea to create a wiki page with the purpose of
>> better understand the problem and find the better way to tag this
>> situation.
>>
>> So we create a wiki page
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/PoliMappers/mapping_deforestation 
>> where
>> is possible to discuss these thematics, let us known your idea.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Stucchi Lorenzo
>>
>>
>> ___
>> 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] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Hi,

thanks for your ideas.

From previous messages we think to change the different tag from landcover to 
hrg_landcover, the idea came form the professor Brovelli. Because we can think 
every type of landcover came from a satellite and the HRGLandCover (High 
Resolution Global Land Cover) is more related to the idea that we want to 
propose.

Having that idea, we think that the creation of the tag org_landcover=barren 
can be very useful.

For what concerns the vegetation if the original sense of the two tag is losted 
we consider the don’t create the tag.

Let us known.
Best,
Lorenzo

Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 14:00, Mateusz Konieczny 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> ha scritto:

> This can be hard to identify in large area with not optimal images
> so the proposal is to create the tag landcover=barren.

If things can not be tagged from aerial images then it is better to wait for 
new ones
rather than add something like that.

> Two types of classifications exist:
> natural=wood for not managed woods like for the main part of the Amazonia.
> landuse=forest for managed woods maintained by humans.

both are simply used for tree-covered areas, and distinction between them is
either ignored or interpreted in some many ways that it is simply meaningless
(note many natural=wood in Europe, where it is hard to find forest not 
maintained by humans)

> Also, this information partially needed a local knowledge so the more general
> tag used can be landcover=trees, also quite used as shown in taginfo.

Landcover trees is a rarely used tag, with over half of use in Paraguay that is
result of single series of edits. It is used by tiny minority of mappers.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=forest
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=wood
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landcover=trees



Mar 13, 2019, 8:49 PM by 
lorenzostucch...@outlook.it:
Hi all,

After some discussion about the idea of this project, we think to better capt 
all the idea to create a wiki page with the purpose of better understand the 
problem and find the better way to tag this situation.

So we create a wiki page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/PoliMappers/mapping_deforestation where is 
possible to discuss these thematics, let us known your idea.

Best Regards,
Stucchi Lorenzo

___
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] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Mateusz Konieczny]

> This can be hard to identify in large area with not optimal images 
> so the proposal is to create the tag landcover=barren. 

If things can not be tagged from aerial images then it is better to wait for 
new ones 
rather than add something like that.

> Two types of classifications exist:
> natural=wood for not managed woods like for the main part of the Amazonia.
> landuse=forest for managed woods maintained by humans.

both are simply used for tree-covered areas, and distinction between them is
either ignored or interpreted in some many ways that it is simply meaningless
(note many natural=wood in Europe, where it is hard to find forest not 
maintained by humans)

> Also, this information partially needed a local knowledge so the more general 
> tag used can be landcover=trees, also quite used as shown in taginfo. 

Landcover trees is a rarely used tag, with over half of use in Paraguay that is
result of single series of edits. It is used by tiny minority of mappers.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landuse=forest 

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/natural=wood 

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/landcover=trees



Mar 13, 2019, 8:49 PM by lorenzostucch...@outlook.it:

> Hi all,
>
> After some discussion about the idea of this project, we think to better capt 
> all the idea to create a wiki page with the purpose of better understand the 
> problem and find the better way to tag this situation.
>
> So we create a wiki page >  
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/PoliMappers/mapping_deforestation 
> >  
> where is possible to discuss these thematics, let us known your idea.
>
> Best Regards,
> Stucchi Lorenzo
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Mateusz Konieczny]

In my experience this kind of "lets drop bunch of fixmes and others will map it 
properly"
leads to nothing good.

It is better to map less but properly rather than add low quality data.

Mar 14, 2019, 10:50 AM by lorenzostucch...@outlook.it:

> Hi, 
>
> thanks for your very interesting point, this can be a good point to thinks to 
> pass to the tag landcover to sat_landcover to better distinguish the 
> different vision. And sat_landcover can be a first draft info just for 
> isolated land where is hard to go and check what is mapped and after this 
> info can be implemented
>

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

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Peter Elderson]

You may want to look at this project:

http://geacron.com/the-geacron-project/

The tool can display/browse historical geo-data as year-to-year browseable
maps. There probably are other tools out there, mayebe even osm-based.
(This is where the real experts kick in...)

Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 14 mrt. 2019 om 10:54 schreef Lorenzo Stucchi <
lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>:

> Hi,
>
> thanks for your very interesting point, this can be a good point to thinks
> to pass to the tag landcover to sat_landcover to better distinguish the
> different vision. And sat_landcover can be a first draft info just for
> isolated land where is hard to go and check what is mapped and after this
> info can be implemented
>
> For the changes in time it depends on the availability of the satellite
> imagery. About this I found some old wiki page with some tools for
> understand the time of the Bing imagery, but they doesn’t works anymore.
>
> Best,
> Lorenzo
>
> Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 09:48, Peter Elderson 
> ha scritto:
>
> I think your idea is good, but the scale and viewpoint are different from
> the regular mapping perspective.
>
> OSM-mappers map "What's on the ground" as seen from the ground, as
> detailed as possible. Satellite imagery is only used to estimate and
> confiirm. Wjhat one doesn't know, is left open. Where there is no
> landcover, no landcover is mapped.
>
> Your idea appears to colour Earth surface in large area's, according to
> predominant cover as seen from satellite. Nothing would remain empty: if
> there is nothing covering the earth, that's what you tag.
>
> I see no way to unite these perspectives in the current landcover, landuse
> and natural tagging. I think you would need a separate special tag for
> this. E.g. sat_landcover=* defined specially for this purpose. Then you can
> define "barren" as a satellite landcover, and you can set up a quality
> assurance system based on systematic review according to satellite imagery.
> Of course, other datausers will be able to use the data for rendering if
> they see fit.
>
> Since it's about changes in the course of time, how do you plan to record
> and display the changes? Yearly datasets?
>
>
> Fr gr Peter Elderson
>
>
> Op do 14 mrt. 2019 om 08:41 schreef Lorenzo Stucchi <
> lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 00:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha
>> scritto:
>>
>>
>> A good guide is to only map what you know, if you don't know - leave the
>> map blank. Colouring in the map may look pretty, but it may hide errors
>> that would be best left for others to find having been altered to the area
>> by the blank area.
>>
>>
>> I think that with the propose of mapping deforestation if we add data in
>> this area were the data aren’t present we don’t just coloured the map but
>> we can create a good database, from which is possible to analyse the
>> evolution of the forest area and have the possibility to study better some
>> aspect of climate change.
>>
>>
>> landcover =barren
>> 
>> .
>>
>> NO! This fails to map what is there.
>>
>>  Map the surrounding area with what you can see and leave a hole in it,
>> use a relation to do it of the type=multipolygon.
>>
>>
>> I’m not agree because If we leave a empty area this can be everything
>> that doesn’t have a tag, for example grass land where we are not sure if
>> its grass or meadow, that its hard to distinguish it from the satellite.
>>
>>
>> landcover =artificial
>> 
>>
>> Don't think so. Too general. And the text links it to are 3 land uses,
>> these are not land covers.
>>
>>
>> I’m agree with you that this can be to general, exactly there are 3
>> different tag to tag the area if better quality imagery are available and
>> is possible to distinguish between them.
>>
>>
>> landcover =cultivated
>> .
>>
>> This is not a land cover, it is a land use. And OSM presently prefers a
>> more detailed value.
>>
>>
>> I thinks that this is landcover, also for the reason explained in the
>> introduction and considering the previous scientific studies.
>>
>>
>> landcover =trees
>> 
>> This at least works .. it is a land cover and it does have trees.
>> Unfortunately it does not render on many maps, so you might also tag it
>> natural=wood.
>>
>>
>> Depends what we think that is more interesting the info in the database
>> or the rendering of the map.
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> Best,
>> Lorenzo Stucchi
>>
>> On 14/03/19 06:49, 

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Hi,

thanks for your very interesting point, this can be a good point to thinks to 
pass to the tag landcover to sat_landcover to better distinguish the different 
vision. And sat_landcover can be a first draft info just for isolated land 
where is hard to go and check what is mapped and after this info can be 
implemented

For the changes in time it depends on the availability of the satellite 
imagery. About this I found some old wiki page with some tools for understand 
the time of the Bing imagery, but they doesn’t works anymore.

Best,
Lorenzo

Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 09:48, Peter Elderson 
mailto:pelder...@gmail.com>> ha scritto:

I think your idea is good, but the scale and viewpoint are different from the 
regular mapping perspective.

OSM-mappers map "What's on the ground" as seen from the ground, as detailed as 
possible. Satellite imagery is only used to estimate and confiirm. Wjhat one 
doesn't know, is left open. Where there is no landcover, no landcover is mapped.

Your idea appears to colour Earth surface in large area's, according to 
predominant cover as seen from satellite. Nothing would remain empty: if there 
is nothing covering the earth, that's what you tag.

I see no way to unite these perspectives in the current landcover, landuse and 
natural tagging. I think you would need a separate special tag for this. E.g. 
sat_landcover=* defined specially for this purpose. Then you can define 
"barren" as a satellite landcover, and you can set up a quality assurance 
system based on systematic review according to satellite imagery. Of course, 
other datausers will be able to use the data for rendering if they see fit.

Since it's about changes in the course of time, how do you plan to record and 
display the changes? Yearly datasets?


Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 14 mrt. 2019 om 08:41 schreef Lorenzo Stucchi 
mailto:lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>>:
Hi,

Thanks for your reply.

Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 00:43, Warin 
<61sundow...@gmail.com> ha scritto:


A good guide is to only map what you know, if you don't know - leave the map 
blank. Colouring in the map may look pretty, but it may hide errors that would 
be best left for others to find having been altered to the area by the blank 
area.

I think that with the propose of mapping deforestation if we add data in this 
area were the data aren’t present we don’t just coloured the map but we can 
create a good database, from which is possible to analyse the evolution of the 
forest area and have the possibility to study better some aspect of climate 
change.


landcover=barren.

NO! This fails to map what is there.

 Map the surrounding area with what you can see and leave a hole in it, use a 
relation to do it of the type=multipolygon.

I’m not agree because If we leave a empty area this can be everything that 
doesn’t have a tag, for example grass land where we are not sure if its grass 
or meadow, that its hard to distinguish it from the satellite.


landcover=artificial

Don't think so. Too general. And the text links it to are 3 land uses, these 
are not land covers.

I’m agree with you that this can be to general, exactly there are 3 different 
tag to tag the area if better quality imagery are available and is possible to 
distinguish between them.


landcover=cultivated.
This is not a land cover, it is a land use. And OSM presently prefers a more 
detailed value.

I thinks that this is landcover, also for the reason explained in the 
introduction and considering the previous scientific studies.


landcover=trees
This at least works .. it is a land cover and it does have trees. Unfortunately 
it does not render on many maps, so you might also tag it natural=wood.

Depends what we think that is more interesting the info in the database or the 
rendering of the map.

Thanks for your reply.

Best,
Lorenzo Stucchi

On 14/03/19 06:49, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:
Hi all,

After some discussion about the idea of this project, we think to better capt 
all the idea to create a wiki page with the purpose of better understand the 
problem and find the better way to tag this situation.

So we create a wiki page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/PoliMappers/mapping_deforestation where is 
possible to discuss these thematics, let us known your idea.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Peter Elderson]

I think your idea is good, but the scale and viewpoint are different from
the regular mapping perspective.

OSM-mappers map "What's on the ground" as seen from the ground, as detailed
as possible. Satellite imagery is only used to estimate and confiirm. Wjhat
one doesn't know, is left open. Where there is no landcover, no landcover
is mapped.

Your idea appears to colour Earth surface in large area's, according to
predominant cover as seen from satellite. Nothing would remain empty: if
there is nothing covering the earth, that's what you tag.

I see no way to unite these perspectives in the current landcover, landuse
and natural tagging. I think you would need a separate special tag for
this. E.g. sat_landcover=* defined specially for this purpose. Then you can
define "barren" as a satellite landcover, and you can set up a quality
assurance system based on systematic review according to satellite imagery.
Of course, other datausers will be able to use the data for rendering if
they see fit.

Since it's about changes in the course of time, how do you plan to record
and display the changes? Yearly datasets?


Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op do 14 mrt. 2019 om 08:41 schreef Lorenzo Stucchi <
lorenzostucch...@outlook.it>:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 00:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> ha
> scritto:
>
>
> A good guide is to only map what you know, if you don't know - leave the
> map blank. Colouring in the map may look pretty, but it may hide errors
> that would be best left for others to find having been altered to the area
> by the blank area.
>
>
> I think that with the propose of mapping deforestation if we add data in
> this area were the data aren’t present we don’t just coloured the map but
> we can create a good database, from which is possible to analyse the
> evolution of the forest area and have the possibility to study better some
> aspect of climate change.
>
>
> landcover =barren
> 
> .
>
> NO! This fails to map what is there.
>
>  Map the surrounding area with what you can see and leave a hole in it,
> use a relation to do it of the type=multipolygon.
>
>
> I’m not agree because If we leave a empty area this can be everything that
> doesn’t have a tag, for example grass land where we are not sure if its
> grass or meadow, that its hard to distinguish it from the satellite.
>
>
> landcover =artificial
> 
>
> Don't think so. Too general. And the text links it to are 3 land uses,
> these are not land covers.
>
>
> I’m agree with you that this can be to general, exactly there are 3
> different tag to tag the area if better quality imagery are available and
> is possible to distinguish between them.
>
>
> landcover =cultivated
> .
>
> This is not a land cover, it is a land use. And OSM presently prefers a
> more detailed value.
>
>
> I thinks that this is landcover, also for the reason explained in the
> introduction and considering the previous scientific studies.
>
>
> landcover =trees
> 
> This at least works .. it is a land cover and it does have trees.
> Unfortunately it does not render on many maps, so you might also tag it
> natural=wood.
>
>
> Depends what we think that is more interesting the info in the database or
> the rendering of the map.
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> Best,
> Lorenzo Stucchi
>
> On 14/03/19 06:49, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> After some discussion about the idea of this project, we think to better
> capt all the idea to create a wiki page with the purpose of better
> understand the problem and find the better way to tag this situation.
>
> So we create a wiki page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/PoliMappers/mapping_deforestation where
> is possible to discuss these thematics, let us known your idea.
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Hi,

Thanks for your reply.

Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 00:43, Warin 
<61sundow...@gmail.com> ha scritto:


A good guide is to only map what you know, if you don't know - leave the map 
blank. Colouring in the map may look pretty, but it may hide errors that would 
be best left for others to find having been altered to the area by the blank 
area.

I think that with the propose of mapping deforestation if we add data in this 
area were the data aren’t present we don’t just coloured the map but we can 
create a good database, from which is possible to analyse the evolution of the 
forest area and have the possibility to study better some aspect of climate 
change.


landcover=barren.

NO! This fails to map what is there.

 Map the surrounding area with what you can see and leave a hole in it, use a 
relation to do it of the type=multipolygon.

I’m not agree because If we leave a empty area this can be everything that 
doesn’t have a tag, for example grass land where we are not sure if its grass 
or meadow, that its hard to distinguish it from the satellite.


landcover=artificial

Don't think so. Too general. And the text links it to are 3 land uses, these 
are not land covers.

I’m agree with you that this can be to general, exactly there are 3 different 
tag to tag the area if better quality imagery are available and is possible to 
distinguish between them.


landcover=cultivated.
This is not a land cover, it is a land use. And OSM presently prefers a more 
detailed value.

I thinks that this is landcover, also for the reason explained in the 
introduction and considering the previous scientific studies.


landcover=trees
This at least works .. it is a land cover and it does have trees. Unfortunately 
it does not render on many maps, so you might also tag it natural=wood.

Depends what we think that is more interesting the info in the database or the 
rendering of the map.

Thanks for your reply.

Best,
Lorenzo Stucchi

On 14/03/19 06:49, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:
Hi all,

After some discussion about the idea of this project, we think to better capt 
all the idea to create a wiki page with the purpose of better understand the 
problem and find the better way to tag this situation.

So we create a wiki page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/PoliMappers/mapping_deforestation where is 
possible to discuss these thematics, let us known your idea.

___
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] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Warin]

On 14/03/19 06:49, Lorenzo Stucchi wrote:

Hi all,

After some discussion about the idea of this project, we think to 
better capt all the idea to create a wiki page with the purpose of 
better understand the problem and find the better way to tag this 
situation.


So we create a wiki page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/PoliMappers/mapping_deforestation where 
is possible to discuss these thematics, let us known your idea.




A good guide is to only map what you know, if you don't know - leave the 
map blank. Colouring in the map may look pretty, but it may hide errors 
that would be best left for others to find having been altered to the 
area by the blank area.



landcover =barren 
.


NO! This fails to map what is there.

 Map the surrounding area with what you can see and leave a hole in it, 
use a relation to do it of the type=multipolygon.


landcover =artificial 



Don't think so. Too general. And the text links it to are 3 land uses, 
these are not land covers.


landcover =cultivated 
. 

This is not a land cover, it is a land use. And OSM presently prefers a 
more detailed value.


landcover =trees 

This at least works .. it is a land cover and it does have trees. 
Unfortunately it does not render on many maps, so you might also tag it 
natural=wood.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[Lorenzo Stucchi]

Hi all,

After some discussion about the idea of this project, we think to better capt 
all the idea to create a wiki page with the purpose of better understand the 
problem and find the better way to tag this situation.

So we create a wiki page 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/PoliMappers/mapping_deforestation where is 
possible to discuss these thematics, let us known your idea.

Best Regards,
Stucchi Lorenzo
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging