Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

2016-05-10 Thread Warin 

On 11/05/2016 4:12 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


Il giorno 10 mag 2016, alle ore 19:55, Mike Thompson  ha 
scritto:

We really have a number of different facts we are attempting to represent:
* What is on the ground (i.e. landcover). Currently this is tagged 
natural=wood, but we could change to landcover=trees, or whatever we agree on.
* Who administers the land / has jurisdiction (e.g. US National Forest Service) 
- seems like we (the people participating in this thread) agree on this one.
* How did the landcover get there? e.g. old growth, human planted, natural secondary 
growth? I suggest that these be "secondary" tags. In other words, all treed 
areas are tagged natural=wood (or whatever tag we agree on), and tags indicating the 
origin of the trees be added where this information is known.
* How is the land being used? This is where we need to come to a consensus on a 
more specific definition for landuse=forest - see above.


+1, and we also have names (for forests, woods, etc.) that don't coincide 
perfectly with where trees grow, where forestry is the landuse etc. (i.e. those 
are toponyms that should have their own geometry, at least it should be 
possible on a semantic level to have them as distinct objects where necessary), 
also nested.



+1 in principle .. detail is the killer.

landuse=forest a simple definition?:  Where the land is used to produce 
forestry products
e.g. wood pulp for paper production, lumber, rubber (from rubber trees), oils 
(eucalyptus, tea tree oil).

Tagging the type of trees has been documented, but the 
creation/planting/source/maintenance of trees has not been done yet,
I don't think it would be well known, popular nor would renders know how to 
display it. So this may not be of much use nor commonly tagged.


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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

2016-05-10 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer 


sent from a phone

> Il giorno 10 mag 2016, alle ore 19:55, Mike Thompson  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> We really have a number of different facts we are attempting to represent:
> * What is on the ground (i.e. landcover). Currently this is tagged 
> natural=wood, but we could change to landcover=trees, or whatever we agree 
> on.  
> * Who administers the land / has jurisdiction (e.g. US National Forest 
> Service) - seems like we (the people participating in this thread) agree on 
> this one. 
> * How did the landcover get there? e.g. old growth, human planted, natural 
> secondary growth? I suggest that these be "secondary" tags. In other words, 
> all treed areas are tagged natural=wood (or whatever tag we agree on), and 
> tags indicating the origin of the trees be added where this information is 
> known.
> * How is the land being used? This is where we need to come to a consensus on 
> a more specific definition for landuse=forest - see above.


+1, and we also have names (for forests, woods, etc.) that don't coincide 
perfectly with where trees grow, where forestry is the landuse etc. (i.e. those 
are toponyms that should have their own geometry, at least it should be 
possible on a semantic level to have them as distinct objects where necessary), 
also nested.


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

Re: [Tagging] [Talk-us] Tagging National Forests

2016-05-10 Thread Mike Thompson 
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Elliott Plack 
wrote:

> Thanks for the continued discussion. It seems that one of you removed the
> offending landuse that I mentioned in my email yesterday (from an import
> that was not attributed). As a result, the tiles have begun to regen, and
> we can now see the beautiful, detailed forest tracing that someone did
> around the ski slopes. This is an example of why blanketing a few hundred
> thousand square miles is not appropriate. Here is a screenshot:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/7xgtiodzjvhq1l4/2016-05-10%2013_14_51-OpenStreetMap.png?dl=0
>
Nice!

>
> Now, I gave this some more thought, and I do tend to agree with Steve A
> that landuse=forest indicates an area designated by humans for a particular
> use.
>
We need to be more specific as to what this means. I would suggest that
this tag is only appropriate where there is active commercial cultivation
of trees for timber, pulp or similar products. Steve things otherwise, and
I respect his point of view and appreciate how he is making his argument.
However, if we go with a much less specific definition, such as anywhere
someone can gather camp fire wood, then any land where there is a tree
(with the exception of designated wilderness areas, etc) become
landuse=forest.

We really have a number of different facts we are attempting to represent:
* What is on the ground (i.e. landcover). Currently this is tagged
natural=wood, but we could change to landcover=trees, or whatever we agree
on.
* Who administers the land / has jurisdiction (e.g. US National Forest
Service) - seems like we (the people participating in this thread) agree on
this one.
* How did the landcover get there? e.g. old growth, human planted, natural
secondary growth? I suggest that these be "secondary" tags. In other words,
all treed areas are tagged natural=wood (or whatever tag we agree on), and
tags indicating the origin of the trees be added where this information is
known.
* How is the land being used? This is where we need to come to a consensus
on a more specific definition for landuse=forest - see above.

Mike

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