Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" on Dartmoor

[ael]

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:51:18PM +0100, Kevin Peat wrote:
> >Anyway, I take it that no one is objecting to my changes and wanting to
> >revert them?
> >
> >ael
> >
> >
> >___
> >Talk-GB mailing list
> >Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> 
> This was discussed in a thread here a number of years ago. There is a lot of 
> upland heath on the moor:
> 
> http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/wildlife-and-heritage/habitats2/moorland/upland-heathland
> 
> I think it would be better if it was kept as heath with a sub type. Just 
> changing it to moor doesn't add anything useful.

Thanks for the link: interesting. Now the question is: what subtype?
heath=upland perhaps?

I am not sure that all the areas that I modified were all "upland",
although I suppose pretty well all of Dartmoor is high.

I agree that  moor doesn't add anything: indeed it was intended to
remove incorrect information on my original narrow understanding of
"heath".



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" on Dartmoor

[ael]

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 06:04:32PM +0100, Elizabeth Oldham wrote:
> On 25/09/17 17:13, ael wrote:
> 
> > Well, surely this make the tag so general as to be pretty useless. The
> > original meaning was pretty specific and useful. "Moor" or something
> > equivalant is well understood (in the UK, at least) and is useful as
> > a broad description where detailed mapping is absent.
> > 
> > Anyway, I take it that no one is objecting to my changes and wanting to
> > revert them?
> 
> No objection here. Descriptive word is moor, everyone and his dog recognises
> it for what it is. The use of heath to describe moors is simply bizarre.
> IMHO/YYMV.

That was exactly my feeling, but the link to 
http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/wildlife-and-heritage/habitats2/moorland/upland-heathland
given by Kevin suggests that perhaps some variety of heath is not too
wrong after all.

ael


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" on Dartmoor

[SK53]

I'm not really suggesting replacing the tag, I just want to make it easier
to find lowland heath.

For now these 2 pages by Alan Silverside (Uni of West Scotland) provide
lots of good illustrations (names are still botanical though):


   - Heathland 1: http://bioref.lastdragon.org/habitats/Heathlands1.html
   - Heathlands 2: http://bioref.lastdragon.org/habitats/Heathlands2.html

Good examples of Acid Heath (D1.1 in Phase1) from Wales which may be
familiar:

   - South Stack, Holy Island, Anglesey
   - Yr Eifl & Mynydd Rhiw on Llyn
   - Rhinogs around Cwm Bychan (but not S part of range from Y Llethr
   towards Barmouth
   - Hills around World's End (N of Llangollen)
   - Much of Tryfan and the land to the S around Bwlch Tryfan
   - Moel Meirch (NW of Cnicht & S of Nant Gwynant)
   - Mynydd Mawr
   - Black Mountains S of Hay Bluff
   - Gray Hill, Gwent
   - Presellis
   - Radnor Forest and hills to S (SW of Gladestry)

Of these areas Mynydd Rhiw and the S Rhinogs offer good examples of this
heath in a mosaic with grassland.

Basic Dry Heath (D.1.2) is very rare in Wales.

Damp Heath (D.2):

   - E side of the Rhinogs S of Coed y Brenin forestry
   - On the Migneint S of Ysbyty Ifan
   - A small patch SW of Sennybridge (Fforest Fawr), much of the rest a
   mosaic with grassland
   - Several patches on the S side of the Carneddau overlooking the A5

Lichen Heath (D.3)

   - Summits of the Glyderau

Montane Heath (D.4)

None in the Welsh dataset

Mosaics (D.5 & D.6), see above where some have been noted under the
core-heathland type.

Now I need to find more useful pics of these sites.

Jerry

On 25 September 2017 at 14:53, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 25/09/2017 13:36, SK53 wrote:
>
> When this thread first started I thought we could work to remove these
> multiple meanings, but having seen what places with natural=heath from
> Corine imported-data in the Cevennes,  suspect that this is an unrealistic
> objective.
>
>
> Well just because one bad import used "Tag A" is not necessarily a reason
> to not use "Tag A" elsewhere.  If we did that we'd never use
> highway=residential post-TIGER :)
>
> The alternatives are to start sub-typing natural=heath, with heath or
> heath:type. The main category to identify in the short-term are the classic
> lowland heaths which are scarce & threatened in the UK.
>
> Wikipedia has a partial tabulation
> 
> of the formal heath categories in the National Vegetation Classification,
> which may help as background reading. I'm sure that pretty much all
> communities in the U-group (calcifugous grassland & montane), several Mires
> (e.g., M15 & M16), and even some calcicolous upland grasslands are included
> in current natural=heath.
>
> At a more practical level the JNCC Phase 1
> 
> guide recognises 6 heath categories, of which 4 are relatively common: wet
> & dry heaths, and their respective mosaics with grassland. Anything where
> the peat depth in the soil is NOT regarded as a heath, but will be a Mire
> community (pennine moorland will be largely blanket bog in this
> terminology).
>
> Both NVC  &
> Phase1 
> have relevant pages on the wiki for (slightly) further info. NVC is clearly
> far too technical for just about everyone, but Phase1 is probably usable
> with a small bit of guidance.
>
> Probably the best way to take this forward is to compile good examples of
> places people are likely to know (particularly in National Parks) which
> have a known classification AND a reasonable number of usable images on
> Geograph. Wales is the easiest place to do this because the whole of the
> country was mapped using Phase1.
>
>
> What would be useful to me would be to know what questions I should be
> asking myself to allow something tagged sensibly down the line?  Can they
> be reduced from the 11 pages in "pub10_handbookforphase1habitatsurvey.pdf"
> that you linked to and phrased in ways that I could actually understand
> ("Ulex europaeus, Cytisus scoparius and Juniperus communis scrub" is
> something that would make Oleksiy in the Latin "talk@" thread very happy,
> but it's all greek to me!)?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" on Dartmoor

[Elizabeth Oldham]

On 25/09/17 17:13, ael wrote:


Well, surely this make the tag so general as to be pretty useless. The
original meaning was pretty specific and useful. "Moor" or something
equivalant is well understood (in the UK, at least) and is useful as
a broad description where detailed mapping is absent.

Anyway, I take it that no one is objecting to my changes and wanting to
revert them?


No objection here. Descriptive word is moor, everyone and his dog 
recognises it for what it is. The use of heath to describe moors is 
simply bizarre. IMHO/YYMV.


Beth

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" on Dartmoor

[Kevin Peat]

On 25 September 2017 17:13:01 BST, ael  wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 01:36:22PM +0100, SK53 wrote:
>> Moor (or possibly fell) covers a decent amount of Corine data
>imported
>> across Europe as natural=heath. In effect natural=heath on OSM no
>longer
>> means heath. It may mean any of the following:
>> 
>>- Upland vegetation in its broadest sense: unimproved upland
>grassland,
>>drier blanket bogs (covered by heather), Racometrium heath,
>Bilberry
>>dominated heath, Shrubby vegetation dominated by brooms (at least
>in France
>>& Spain), and no doubt a few others I've missed.
>>- Moorland in Britain, which is probably a slightly smaller subset
>of
>>the above
>>- Lowland heathland: places like the Surrey Heaths, Suffolk
>Sandlings,
>>Norfolk Brecks etc.
>>- Other less obvious lowland areas known as heaths: particularly
>with
>>large swathes of bracken and patches of birch.
>> 
>> When this thread first started I thought we could work to remove
>these
>> multiple meanings, but having seen what places with natural=heath
>from
>> Corine imported-data in the Cevennes,  suspect that this is an
>unrealistic
>> objective.
>
>Well, surely this make the tag so general as to be pretty useless. The
>original meaning was pretty specific and useful. "Moor" or something
>equivalant is well understood (in the UK, at least) and is useful as
>a broad description where detailed mapping is absent.
>
>Anyway, I take it that no one is objecting to my changes and wanting to
>revert them?
>
>ael
>
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

This was discussed in a thread here a number of years ago. There is a lot of 
upland heath on the moor:

http://www.dartmoor.gov.uk/wildlife-and-heritage/habitats2/moorland/upland-heathland

I think it would be better if it was kept as heath with a sub type. Just 
changing it to moor doesn't add anything useful.

Kevin


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" on Dartmoor

[ael]

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 01:36:22PM +0100, SK53 wrote:
> Moor (or possibly fell) covers a decent amount of Corine data imported
> across Europe as natural=heath. In effect natural=heath on OSM no longer
> means heath. It may mean any of the following:
> 
>- Upland vegetation in its broadest sense: unimproved upland grassland,
>drier blanket bogs (covered by heather), Racometrium heath, Bilberry
>dominated heath, Shrubby vegetation dominated by brooms (at least in France
>& Spain), and no doubt a few others I've missed.
>- Moorland in Britain, which is probably a slightly smaller subset of
>the above
>- Lowland heathland: places like the Surrey Heaths, Suffolk Sandlings,
>Norfolk Brecks etc.
>- Other less obvious lowland areas known as heaths: particularly with
>large swathes of bracken and patches of birch.
> 
> When this thread first started I thought we could work to remove these
> multiple meanings, but having seen what places with natural=heath from
> Corine imported-data in the Cevennes,  suspect that this is an unrealistic
> objective.

Well, surely this make the tag so general as to be pretty useless. The
original meaning was pretty specific and useful. "Moor" or something
equivalant is well understood (in the UK, at least) and is useful as
a broad description where detailed mapping is absent.

Anyway, I take it that no one is objecting to my changes and wanting to
revert them?

ael


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" on Dartmoor

[Andy Townsend]

On 25/09/2017 13:36, SK53 wrote:
When this thread first started I thought we could work to remove these 
multiple meanings, but having seen what places with natural=heath from 
Corine imported-data in the Cevennes,  suspect that this is an 
unrealistic objective.


Well just because one bad import used "Tag A" is not necessarily a 
reason to not use "Tag A" elsewhere.  If we did that we'd never use 
highway=residential post-TIGER :)


The alternatives are to start sub-typing natural=heath, with heath or 
heath:type. The main category to identify in the short-term are the 
classic lowland heaths which are scarce & threatened in the UK.


Wikipedia has a partial tabulation 
 
of the formal heath categories in the National Vegetation 
Classification, which may help as background reading. I'm sure that 
pretty much all communities in the U-group (calcifugous grassland & 
montane), several Mires (e.g., M15 & M16), and even some calcicolous 
upland grasslands are included in current natural=heath.


At a more practical level the JNCC Phase 1 
 
guide recognises 6 heath categories, of which 4 are relatively common: 
wet & dry heaths, and their respective mosaics with grassland. 
Anything where the peat depth in the soil is NOT regarded as a heath, 
but will be a Mire community (pennine moorland will be largely blanket 
bog in this terminology).


Both NVC  & 
Phase1 
 
have relevant pages on the wiki for (slightly) further info. NVC is 
clearly far too technical for just about everyone, but Phase1 is 
probably usable with a small bit of guidance.


Probably the best way to take this forward is to compile good examples 
of places people are likely to know (particularly in National Parks) 
which have a known classification AND a reasonable number of usable 
images on Geograph. Wales is the easiest place to do this because the 
whole of the country was mapped using Phase1.




What would be useful to me would be to know what questions I should be 
asking myself to allow something tagged sensibly down the line? Can they 
be reduced from the 11 pages in 
"pub10_handbookforphase1habitatsurvey.pdf" that you linked to and 
phrased in ways that I could actually understand ("Ulex europaeus, 
Cytisus scoparius and Juniperus communis scrub" is something that would 
make Oleksiy in the Latin "talk@" thread very happy, but it's all greek 
to me!)?


Best Regards,

Andy


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" on Dartmoor

[SK53]

Moor (or possibly fell) covers a decent amount of Corine data imported
across Europe as natural=heath. In effect natural=heath on OSM no longer
means heath. It may mean any of the following:

   - Upland vegetation in its broadest sense: unimproved upland grassland,
   drier blanket bogs (covered by heather), Racometrium heath, Bilberry
   dominated heath, Shrubby vegetation dominated by brooms (at least in France
   & Spain), and no doubt a few others I've missed.
   - Moorland in Britain, which is probably a slightly smaller subset of
   the above
   - Lowland heathland: places like the Surrey Heaths, Suffolk Sandlings,
   Norfolk Brecks etc.
   - Other less obvious lowland areas known as heaths: particularly with
   large swathes of bracken and patches of birch.

When this thread first started I thought we could work to remove these
multiple meanings, but having seen what places with natural=heath from
Corine imported-data in the Cevennes,  suspect that this is an unrealistic
objective.

The alternatives are to start sub-typing natural=heath, with heath or
heath:type. The main category to identify in the short-term are the classic
lowland heaths which are scarce & threatened in the UK.

Wikipedia has a partial tabulation

of the formal heath categories in the National Vegetation Classification,
which may help as background reading. I'm sure that pretty much all
communities in the U-group (calcifugous grassland & montane), several Mires
(e.g., M15 & M16), and even some calcicolous upland grasslands are included
in current natural=heath.

At a more practical level the JNCC Phase 1

guide recognises 6 heath categories, of which 4 are relatively common: wet
& dry heaths, and their respective mosaics with grassland. Anything where
the peat depth in the soil is NOT regarded as a heath, but will be a Mire
community (pennine moorland will be largely blanket bog in this
terminology).

Both NVC  & Phase1
 have
relevant pages on the wiki for (slightly) further info. NVC is clearly far
too technical for just about everyone, but Phase1 is probably usable with a
small bit of guidance.

Probably the best way to take this forward is to compile good examples of
places people are likely to know (particularly in National Parks) which
have a known classification AND a reasonable number of usable images on
Geograph. Wales is the easiest place to do this because the whole of the
country was mapped using Phase1.

Regards,

Jerry




On 25 September 2017 at 12:28, ael  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 10:10:07AM +, SK53 wrote:
> > than anything they reflect that OSM as a project lacks good tags for many
> > of these boreo-temperate upland features, and whilst that is true there
>
> I have been changing some "heath" areas of Dartmoor to "moor". But I
> notice that the wiki claims that this is deprecated.
>
> Since most of these are large areas which really cover a variety of
> vegetation, I can't see that any of the "established" tags are really
> appropriate. "Moor" is exactly right.
>
> If forced to use the documentated tags, I would go for
> natural = grassland;wetland as the best approximation despite the
> fact that not everything is wet nor is grass.
>
> Of course, it only makes sense for coarse-grained approximate mapping,
> and more localised accurate tags are the ideal.
>
> Should "moor" or something similar be restored and supported by
> renderers?
>
> ael
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" on Dartmoor

[Colin Spiller]

Sounds sensible to me but I'm no expert. We have lots of moor here in Yorkshire
Colin

⁣Sent from TypeApp ​

On 25 Sep 2017, 12:31, at 12:31, ael  wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 10:10:07AM +, SK53 wrote:
>> than anything they reflect that OSM as a project lacks good tags for
>many
>> of these boreo-temperate upland features, and whilst that is true
>there
>
>I have been changing some "heath" areas of Dartmoor to "moor". But I
>notice that the wiki claims that this is deprecated.
>
>Since most of these are large areas which really cover a variety of
>vegetation, I can't see that any of the "established" tags are really
>appropriate. "Moor" is exactly right.
>
>If forced to use the documentated tags, I would go for
>natural = grassland;wetland as the best approximation despite the
>fact that not everything is wet nor is grass.
>
>Of course, it only makes sense for coarse-grained approximate mapping,
>and more localised accurate tags are the ideal.
>
>Should "moor" or something similar be restored and supported by
>renderers?
>
>ael
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" on Dartmoor

[ael]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 10:10:07AM +, SK53 wrote:
> than anything they reflect that OSM as a project lacks good tags for many
> of these boreo-temperate upland features, and whilst that is true there

I have been changing some "heath" areas of Dartmoor to "moor". But I
notice that the wiki claims that this is deprecated.

Since most of these are large areas which really cover a variety of 
vegetation, I can't see that any of the "established" tags are really
appropriate. "Moor" is exactly right. 

If forced to use the documentated tags, I would go for
natural = grassland;wetland as the best approximation despite the 
fact that not everything is wet nor is grass.

Of course, it only makes sense for coarse-grained approximate mapping,
and more localised accurate tags are the ideal.

Should "moor" or something similar be restored and supported by
renderers?

ael

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb