Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@... writes: ... IMHO in OSM it would make sense to have several tags describing generic properties instead of having one single value with a very specific class. E.g. one tag might be vegetation=trees, shrubs, grass, no, where no could follow the definition given by the FAO, i.e. a total vegetative cover of less than 4% for at least 10 months of the year, or an absence of Woody or Herbaceous life forms and with less than 25% cover of Lichens/Mosses ... another tag might describe whether it is a water covered area or not, etc. To have a couple of keys instead of one key to describe how an area looks like could work. For instance, a key for vegetation with a given set of values could help map a lot of areas. To have a key for the bare areas would complement that. Maybe surface could be used for those areas of stone, pavement, sand and soil. It looks good to have complete sets of values, the four values for vegetation could theoretically be used to cover the whole planet but I think veg=no willl be implied on most bare areas. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 16:11 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: Yes, if animals are intended to graze on the grass, if the grass will be harvested for use as fodder (what my earlier message termed a hay field), or if sod will subsequently be transplanted elsewhere (a sod farm), then the grass is being grown as a crop, and landuse=grass is appropriate. Turf is probably a more appropriate word, sod is likely to be pulled by various filters as it is a minor swear word. Phil ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
Philip Barnes p...@trigpoint.me.uk wrote: On Mon, 2012-08-13 at 16:11 -0500, John F. Eldredge wrote: Yes, if animals are intended to graze on the grass, if the grass will be harvested for use as fodder (what my earlier message termed a hay field), or if sod will subsequently be transplanted elsewhere (a sod farm), then the grass is being grown as a crop, and landuse=grass is appropriate. Turf is probably a more appropriate word, sod is likely to be pulled by various filters as it is a minor swear word. Phil This is one of the dialect differences between American English and British English. In American usage, sod means grass plants. Replanting grass on a bare section of ground is termed resodding, and facilities that grow grass to be transplanted, roots, dirt, and all, are termed sod farms. British speech sometimes uses the grass meaning of sod, from what I read, as in Irishmen referring to their homeland as the old sod, as well as the perjorative usage of sod to mean sodomite. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
Le mar. 14 aout 2012 à 20:18 +, Johan Jönsson a ecrit : If we replace herbaceous with grass you don´t have to know much about biology. FAO's idea is also to avoid biological and geological terms. The FAO-system relies on that a couple of different data is added, all of them is not needed, it could be refined later. Based on these they can categorize the landcover. Could you please give a link to the FAO schema you are referring to? -- ° /\Guillaume AllègreOpenStreetMap France /~~\/\ allegre.guilla...@free.fr Cartographie libre et collaborative / /~~\tél. 04.76.63.26.99 http://www.openstreetmap.fr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
2012/8/15 Guillaume Allegre allegre.guilla...@free.fr: Could you please give a link to the FAO schema you are referring to? http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y7220e/y7220e00.htm#Contents basically they use a 2 phase classification system, where the first phase is very simple and leads to 8 generic types of landcover. The second phase refines those 8 classes. IMHO in OSM it would make sense to have several tags describing generic properties instead of having one single value with a very specific class. E.g. one tag might be vegetation=trees, shrubs, grass, no, where no could follow the definition given by the FAO, i.e. a total vegetative cover of less than 4% for at least 10 months of the year, or an absence of Woody or Herbaceous life forms and with less than 25% cover of Lichens/Mosses which might sound complicated or lengthy, but for most of the places you find in the real world it would be easy because far from those limits) another tag might describe whether it is a water covered area or not, etc. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
I thought we used natural=* for this kind of thing. For the different broad classes of vegetation discussed so far in this thread, there's natural=grass/scrub/wood. Of course there's natural=water. Other landcover types are uncommon in central Ohio so I'm not familiar with their tagging, but I thought we had natural= values for things like sand, bare rock, swamp, glacier, etc... So why is a new tag or hierarchy needed? Are we just trying to standardize or formalize a presently-haphazard array of tags or values? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
2012/8/15 David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com: I thought we used natural=* for this kind of thing. natural is not defined in a clear way IMHO, it is a mixture of different kind of features, but most of them could be called geographical features and if this was expressed clearly it would introduce some logics that can also help develop new tags for things for which currently there is no tag in general use. Please have a look at the main natural page to review the list of current features: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural IMHO all those would qualify for geographical feature: arete beach bay cave_entrance cliff coastline fell glacier heath peak ridge saddle scrub spring tree_row volcano wetland maybe also stone tree wood grassland while these are not geographical features in this sense: water scree sand mud For the different broad classes of vegetation discussed so far in this thread, there's natural=grass/scrub/wood. Of course there's natural=water. Other landcover types are uncommon in central Ohio so I'm not familiar with their tagging, but I thought we had natural= values for things like sand, bare rock, swamp, glacier, etc... how can sand or bare_rock be in the same category as swamp and glacier? The latter would be mud or ice if we were using the same kind of categorisation IMHO. So why is a new tag or hierarchy needed? Are we just trying to standardize or formalize a presently-haphazard array of tags or values? IMHO introducing a clear logic into the current system would make it easier for everybody. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
On 15 August 2012 21:15, David ``Smith'' vidthe...@gmail.com wrote: So why is a new tag or hierarchy needed? Are we just trying to standardize or formalize a presently-haphazard array of tags or values? The problem at the moment is that we have two types of tags (landcover and landuse) scattered throughout a whole bunch of categories. Even worse, we have tags that are used as landuse=* that are not landuse type, but landcover type. It makes explaining the difference and training people close to impossible. I personally don't care if we set up a landcover= tag or not, as long as we get these tags out of the landuse= tag space. Long version: Landuse tags say what an area is used for - residential, retail, school, park, military base, hospital etc. As a general rule, there is only one landuse tag covering a given area. Not all of these tags are of the form landuse= Landcover tags say what is on a given part of ground - grass, sand, swamp, etc, but also buildings, rivers, roads, sports pitches, gardens, fields etc. Again, as a general rule, landcover areas don't overlap, though ways will often be put through areas rather than split the area in two. It's quite common and even expected for landcover and landuse tags to overlap, however. A single landuse may contain many different landcover tags - the school nearest my house has buildings, car parks, grass, sports pitches, a farm area (animal paddock and crops), a sports hall, and that's just what I can see from the road. It's still all one landuse of school, though. This is confusing enough to mappers without having to say some of the landuse=* tags aren't actually landuse ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes: On 08/13/12 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: +1, the FAO system seems quite elaborated (might be too detailed/complicated/long for OSM, not sure, Anything used for OSM must enable someone who knows shit about biology and geology to make a meaningful contribution (that does not make him feel like he's completely useless because he could only fill in 2% of the blanks). ... Anything that contains the word herbaceous is, however attractive to someone working in the field, is very likely not suitable for OSM. Of course enthusiasts can use specialist tags to record esoteric stuff, but I fear that many people believe that such tags, if adopted, would automatically enter the mainstream and their filling out be requested from everyone who adds data, when indeed our presets are often too crowded already. If we replace herbaceous with grass you don´t have to know much about biology. FAO's idea is also to avoid biological and geological terms. The FAO-system relies on that a couple of different data is added, all of them is not needed, it could be refined later. Based on these they can categorize the landcover. At the highest most unrefined level there are only 8 different types. These eight then have their own set of tags. One of the eight are vegetated land (excluding farms and parks), the first refinement is done by asking if it is: mainly trees (big plants to climb in), shrubs (smaller plants you have to hack yourself through) or if it is low vegetation The only word they have for the last is herbaceous but as previously discussed, we might use grass instead. I think that chosing between the three values trees/shrubs/grass would be manageable by every mapper. Then there could be other tags if someone wants to add more of the data, mostly things like the form of the leafs and if the trees form a full cover or if they are sparse. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
2012/7/31 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc wrote: There are several ways to tag landcover with existing tags but if we where to define a new tag for grass along the lines of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover Why ? We have 1.066.000 landuse=grass and 756 landcover=grass. No vote required (that's perhaps why the proposed feature never tried one). landuse=grass is not the same as landcover=grass, in fact, grass isn't a landuse at all. If you tag landuse=grass you actually loose the ability to tag a real landuse. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
Hi, On 08/13/12 11:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: landuse=grass is not the same as landcover=grass, in fact, grass isn't a landuse at all. If you tag landuse=grass you actually loose the ability to tag a real landuse. I think the opposite is true. If people know what the landuse is then they will tag that; if not and there's grass on the ground then they'll fall back to landuse=grass. For example, if there's a military area with grass, people will use landuse=military and the fact that there's grass will not be recorded (or maybe landuse=military surface=grass?). I.e. if you use the landuse tag to record the presence of grass then you lose the ability to record the presence of grass in areas subject to land use. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
2012/8/3 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: There are of course several ways to construct hierarchy, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) uses one such approach and when they come sufficently deep they switch to a more complicated system with tailored classifiers and attributes to go further. +1, the FAO system seems quite elaborated (might be too detailed/complicated/long for OSM, not sure, but personally I'd like to have it adopted). It could be translated to OSM by using several tags i.e. you would describe the area with several tags by telling if there is vegetation or not, if the vegetation is dense or sparse, how humid the soil is, so instead of having a detailed value for every exact vegetation/coverage type you'd describe the single characteristics. This also allows for global statistics and comparison between areas that are similar in some attributes, but not all (e.g. the kind of vegetation also depends heavily on temperature and the natural environment). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
2012/8/13 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: On 08/13/12 11:14, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: landuse=grass is not the same as landcover=grass, in fact, grass isn't a landuse at all. If you tag landuse=grass you actually loose the ability to tag a real landuse. I think the opposite is true. If people know what the landuse is then they will tag that; if not and there's grass on the ground then they'll fall back to landuse=grass. For example, if there's a military area with grass, people will use landuse=military and the fact that there's grass will not be recorded (or maybe landuse=military surface=grass?). I.e. if you use the landuse tag to record the presence of grass then you lose the ability to record the presence of grass in areas subject to land use. You have a strange idea about the opposite ;-), I'm fine with what you wrote as well. The thing is, that landuse=grass should be used, according to the wiki, for smaller areas of mown and managed grass for example in the middle of a roundabout, verges beside a road or in the middle of a dual-carriageway. Should not be used where a more specific tag is available. So this isn't actually a tag for every spot where you can find grass, but it is a tag for auxiliary areas dedicated to traffic. Interpretating the definition strictly, it also appears as if we would be missing a tag for the bigger areas ;-) IMHO it would be less misleading to call that tag landuse=de:Verkehrsnebenflächen (sorry, don't know a precise English term, direct translation is s.th. like auxiliary_traffic_area) and specify the actual cover in a second tag (if you like). cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
On 08/13/12 11:33, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: +1, the FAO system seems quite elaborated (might be too detailed/complicated/long for OSM, not sure, Anything used for OSM must enable someone who knows shit about biology and geology to make a meaningful contribution (that does not make him feel like he's completely useless because he could only fill in 2% of the blanks). Too often, tagging discussion is driven by the wet dreams of specialists in one field or the other (wouldn't it be great it volunteers the world over would record the soil acidity? imagine what we could do with that data!). Remember that it has so far been impossible to educate people to even differentiate between landuse=forest and natural=wood. Anything that contains the word herbaceous is, however attractive to someone working in the field, is very likely not suitable for OSM. Of course enthusiasts can use specialist tags to record esoteric stuff, but I fear that many people believe that such tags, if adopted, would automatically enter the mainstream and their filling out be requested from everyone who adds data, when indeed our presets are often too crowded already. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
according to the wiki, for smaller areas of mown and managed grass for example in the middle of a roundabout, verges beside a road or in So this isn't actually a tag for every spot where you can find grass, but it is a tag for auxiliary areas dedicated to traffic. It reads for example above. My point in this message: Not all of them are auxiliary areas of highways. I've always taken landuse=grass to mean any area, that grows grass, but where said area is not used for anything else, except for growing that grass, and which gets mowed at least sometimes, to keep it from naturally becoming something else. If it would be left unmaintained, it would turn into scrub, mud, or meadow, or similar. In a few years anyway. If it would be used for leisure, it'd be (a part of a) leisure=park. If it would be used for sport, it'd probably be leisure=pitch. -- Alv ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
2012/8/13 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: according to the wiki, for smaller areas of mown and managed grass for example in the middle of a roundabout, verges beside a road or in So this isn't actually a tag for every spot where you can find grass, but it is a tag for auxiliary areas dedicated to traffic. It reads for example above. My point in this message: Not all of them are auxiliary areas of highways. +1, but this doesn't change anything, you simply tag the landuse of other areas where grass grows according to what it is. Still grass doesn't become a landuse. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/8/13 Kytömaa Lauri lauri.kyto...@aalto.fi: according to the wiki, for smaller areas of mown and managed grass for example in the middle of a roundabout, verges beside a road or in So this isn't actually a tag for every spot where you can find grass, but it is a tag for auxiliary areas dedicated to traffic. It reads for example above. My point in this message: Not all of them are auxiliary areas of highways. +1, but this doesn't change anything, you simply tag the landuse of other areas where grass grows according to what it is. Still grass doesn't become a landuse. cheers, Martin The only situations, in my opinion, where the landuse=grass tag would be appropriate would be for a hay field and for a sod farm (where grass is being grown for future transplanting). In both cases, grass is being grown as a crop. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
Still grass doesn't become a landuse. I woul dnot agree with this statement. In many areas of the world, grass is grown and harvested as (winter) fodder for animals. According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse this is tagged as landuse=grass If the grass is used for grazing, the wiki suggests landuse=meadow For the the mapper who is not a farming expert, it's often difficult to distinguish between the two uses. In addition in many cases both uses apply to the same piece of land at different seasons. Volker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
2012/8/13 Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com: I woul dnot agree with this statement. In many areas of the world, grass is grown and harvested as (winter) fodder for animals. According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse this is tagged as landuse=grass IMHO the general landuse=farmland would make more sense, if you want to tag that grass is grown you could use a subtag. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
Volker Schmidt vosc...@gmail.com wrote: Still grass doesn't become a landuse. I woul dnot agree with this statement. In many areas of the world, grass is grown and harvested as (winter) fodder for animals. According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landuse this is tagged as landuse=grass If the grass is used for grazing, the wiki suggests landuse=meadow For the the mapper who is not a farming expert, it's often difficult to distinguish between the two uses. In addition in many cases both uses apply to the same piece of land at different seasons. Volker ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging Yes, if animals are intended to graze on the grass, if the grass will be harvested for use as fodder (what my earlier message termed a hay field), or if sod will subsequently be transplanted elsewhere (a sod farm), then the grass is being grown as a crop, and landuse=grass is appropriate. -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
2012/8/13 John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com: Yes, if animals are intended to graze on the grass, if the grass will be harvested for use as fodder (what my earlier message termed a hay field), or if sod will subsequently be transplanted elsewhere (a sod farm), then the grass is being grown as a crop, and landuse=grass is appropriate. I think that it is not a good idea to tag grass grown for agricultural use as a crop the same as green areas besides or between streets. Physically they might be the same, but there is a big difference. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
2012/8/3 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com: Am 03.08.2012 um 15:33 schrieb Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: It is the third value in the series trees/shrubs/?? I am looking for. In this context I would like to ask all native speakers: what is a shrub? What is a bush (not George)? What is used in common language? Well Im not sure but my guess is that it can't be Dan Blocker, Hoss in Bonanza, because he wears a hat :D Thanks in advance! ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
To make my question more clear: IF we where to use landcover, what would then the value for grasslands and lawns be? =herbaceous =herbs =grass In another context, guess the third: landcover=trees/shrubs/??? The description would be something like Areas where the vegetation is dominated by grasses and other herbaceous (non-woody) plants, with only sparse trees and shrubs. Including managed lands but excluding cultivated areas (crops) and wetlands. p.s. Nice overview Imagic d.s. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
2012/8/3 Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc: To make my question more clear: IF we where to use landcover, what would then the value for grasslands and lawns be? =herbaceous =herbs =grass I would use: landcover=grass and (if necessary) grass=herbs In my opinion it would be easier and more robust for data consumers. They only need to support landcover=grass and if we later on add some refinement (like grass=herbs) consumers are still able to process this data. If for some consumer the refinement is an improvement it can also support grass=herbs, if not no actions are necessary. But on the other hand those subkeys are harder for mappers. That's why we will not see landcover=vegetation + vegetation=trees and similar constructs. Such hierarchical tags have the disadvantage that mappers often have to use more than one tag. Even for such common objects like forests. And mappers will simply not accept that (no matter how much templates we give them in any past, present and future editor imo). To cut a long story short: landcover=herbs would also be fine, IF we would expect that those tag will be often used and the difference to landcover=grass is substantial enough. As I doubt that I would recommend landcover=grass and grass=herbs. (Here I want to excuse for my english. I'm really tired and today it's even worse than usual.) p.s. Nice overview Imagic d.s. Thanks. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
On 03/08/2012 13:36, Martin Vonwald wrote: To cut a long story short: landcover=herbs would also be fine, IF we would expect that those tag will be often used and the difference to landcover=grass is substantial enough. As I doubt that I would recommend landcover=grass and grass=herbs. Grass is an example of a herbaceous plant, and we tag from generic towards specific, so it should really be landcover=herbaceous and herbaceous=grass. I would advise against using herbs in this context. Although it may be technically not incorrect amongst biologists, in common English usage it refers to plants used for flavourings etc. like Thyme, Rosemary, and Oregano. Joe Mapper is never going to forget that, although Jean-Luc Cartographe might be excused for confusing grass and herbs (herbe is French for grass, as well as the culinary plants) Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
On 03/08/2012 12:36, Martin Vonwald wrote: But on the other hand those subkeys are harder for mappers. That's why we will not see landcover=vegetation + vegetation=trees and similar constructs. Such hierarchical tags have the disadvantage that mappers often have to use more than one tag. Even for such common objects like forests. And mappers will simply not accept that I agree on trying to have a limited set of values for landcover ( a complete set) but on the same time try to avoid subkeys for the obvious differences. I think that replacing a value of vegetation with three values trees/shrubs/herbaceous would still make the numbers of values a reasonable amount. Colin Smale colin.smale@... writes: Grass is an example of a herbaceous plant, and we tag from generic towards specific, so it should really be landcover=herbaceous and herbaceous=grass. I would advise against using herbs in this context. Although it may be technically not incorrect amongst biologists, in common English usage it refers to plants used for flavourings etc. like Thyme, Rosemary, and Oregano. Joe Mapper is never going to forget that, although Jean-Luc Cartographe might be excused for confusing grass and herbs (herbe is French for grass, as well as the culinary plants) Colin Thanks for the insights on the word herb. Then it is a contest between the formal but long value: herbaceous and the shorter value: grass It is the same thing they are supposed to map, it is just a question on the name of the value. It is the third value in the series trees/shrubs/?? I am looking for. (I understand that Imagic in his previous post thought it to be a hierarchy, this shows a weakness in the proposed values, would the value grass be understood as fields of plants, even if there are more of something else than just grass.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbaceous_plant http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krautige_Pflanze ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
Please forget my last mail - I'm too tired to read. I would prefer landcover=grass over landcover=herbawhatwasit. Simply because I doubt that many mappers would remember the latter. Martin Am 03.08.2012 um 14:42 schrieb Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: On 03/08/2012 13:36, Martin Vonwald wrote: To cut a long story short: landcover=herbs would also be fine, IF we would expect that those tag will be often used and the difference to landcover=grass is substantial enough. As I doubt that I would recommend landcover=grass and grass=herbs. Grass is an example of a herbaceous plant, and we tag from generic towards specific, so it should really be landcover=herbaceous and herbaceous=grass. I would advise against using herbs in this context. Although it may be technically not incorrect amongst biologists, in common English usage it refers to plants used for flavourings etc. like Thyme, Rosemary, and Oregano. Joe Mapper is never going to forget that, although Jean-Luc Cartographe might be excused for confusing grass and herbs (herbe is French for grass, as well as the culinary plants) Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
What about this: Let's have fully qualified hierarchical names, something like landcover=vegetation:herbaceous:grass, landcover=herbaceous:herbs or landcover=vegetation:trees:coniferous That woudld allow precise specification as well as something green grows there. Mappers would understandably not be willing to do it all, therefore any generic qualifications could be omited if the rest is unambiguous. Renderers would be able to easily render all vegetation green (not caring what details come after). Common values like trees or grass would likely (usually) be used without generic qualifiers (would not work on renderers rendering vegetation:doNotCare only). The main advantage is that any detail can be mapped without introducing too many keys of requiring too much detail to be provided. 2012/8/3 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl: On 03/08/2012 13:36, Martin Vonwald wrote: To cut a long story short: landcover=herbs would also be fine, IF we would expect that those tag will be often used and the difference to landcover=grass is substantial enough. As I doubt that I would recommend landcover=grass and grass=herbs. Grass is an example of a herbaceous plant, and we tag from generic towards specific, so it should really be landcover=herbaceous and herbaceous=grass. I would advise against using herbs in this context. Although it may be technically not incorrect amongst biologists, in common English usage it refers to plants used for flavourings etc. like Thyme, Rosemary, and Oregano. Joe Mapper is never going to forget that, although Jean-Luc Cartographe might be excused for confusing grass and herbs (herbe is French for grass, as well as the culinary plants) Colin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
LM_1 flukas.robot+osm@... writes: What about this: Let's have fully qualified hierarchical names, something like landcover=vegetation:herbaceous:grass, ... Mappers would understandably not be willing to do it all, therefore any generic qualifications could be omited if the rest is unambiguous. ... Sounds like a great way. There are of course several ways to construct hierarchy, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) uses one such approach and when they come sufficently deep they switch to a more complicated system with tailored classifiers and attributes to go further. Right below the hierarchical system for vegetated land, FAO begin the classification by using the overall appearance of the vegetation to categorize landcover. They use something they call lifeforms where they identify woody plants as distinguished from herbacious plants. The woody plants are subdivided into trees and shrubs following the simple rule: If higher than 5 metres then it is a tree. They then identify if the land has a cover of trees/shrubs or if it is herbaceous. This is supposed to be a complete set of possibilities. -So on some level in the hierarchy we could (if we want) use theses three values as the only ones. That is why I am thinking on what names these three should have. For the moment the names of the three values are: trees/shrubs(?)/grass Defined as: Trees are woody plants over 5 m Shrubs are woody plants below 5 m Grass are not woody plants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_plant ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
2012/7/31 LM_1 flukas.robot+...@gmail.com: When you search wiki for grass, you get landuse=grass. When you type grass in JOSM's preset search box, you get landuse=grass. Potlatch does not offer any direct way to tag grass. landuse=grass was probably used before anyone thought about the difference between landuse and landcover (in osm tagging). Today's renderers support landuse=gras and do not support landcover=anything. That being the reasons for landuse=* domination it is hardly enough to proclaim it the better way. +1 It hardly is the better way. The key landuse is contaminated with a lot of values that simple don't fit or are used in an inconsistent way. Most prominent example for sure is landuse=forest, which currently is used in case the land is covered with trees. But this is not a landUSE. If the land is used for growing trees than landuse=forest is correct, but there may not be any trees at all at the current time because they are just being planted (landuse=forest + landcover=grass). On the other hand there could be a lot of trees but completely unmanaged (landcover=trees + no landuse). That's the main reason why landuse (and also natural) needs some heavy cleanup which of course would deprecate some tags and for sure take some time. But I don't see any other way. I started an overview on my user page of the current usage of landuse/natural and how it might look if we use landcover. If someone is interested take a look. Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
Am 01.08.2012 um 17:09 schrieb John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com: I think it's a good idea to fix this, but it may have gone too far to be fixable. Oh come on! Be a little bit optimistic! ;-) I started an overview on my user page of the current usage of landuse/natural and how it might look if we use landcover. If someone is interested take a look. Could you send a link (sorry, I can't remember your username, and can't find your page using the search facility although I may have used the wrong search)? Ups - forgot to add the link: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Imagic/landcover Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc wrote: There are several ways to tag landcover with existing tags but if we where to define a new tag for grass along the lines of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover Why ? We have 1.066.000 landuse=grass and 756 landcover=grass. No vote required (that's perhaps why the proposed feature never tried one). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] on the name of a tag for landcover
When you search wiki for grass, you get landuse=grass. When you type grass in JOSM's preset search box, you get landuse=grass. Potlatch does not offer any direct way to tag grass. landuse=grass was probably used before anyone thought about the difference between landuse and landcover (in osm tagging). Today's renderers support landuse=gras and do not support landcover=anything. That being the reasons for landuse=* domination it is hardly enough to proclaim it the better way. LM_1 2012/7/31 Pieren pier...@gmail.com: On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Johan Jönsson joha...@goteborg.cc wrote: There are several ways to tag landcover with existing tags but if we where to define a new tag for grass along the lines of http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover Why ? We have 1.066.000 landuse=grass and 756 landcover=grass. No vote required (that's perhaps why the proposed feature never tried one). Pieren ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
