2011/9/2 Johan Jönsson <[email protected]>: > It is an ambitious project and it would be nice if we could try to do > something > similar.
+1 > By there scheme bare_rock goes like this: > Vegetation=no > Wetland=no > man_made_cover=no yes, in the first phase > Further differentiating could be done based on the surface structure, > something > in the line of fragmented=yes/no in the second phase (they call it the modular/hierarchical phase) they do: I surface aspect II macropattern landform,climate altitude,erosion,vegetation soil type/lithology cheers, Martin PS: The FAO document is really interesting, what do you think about a tag "vegetation_structure" to be applied to vegetated areas like meadow, scrub and forest with the suggested values "open" and "closed"? This is inspired by this scheme: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/X0596E/X0596e13.gif and could help to differentiate between woodlands and dense forests or between thickets and shrubland. It could also be used on beaches (some of them are bare, others have sparse vegetation, e.g. there could be "vegetation_structure=open" and "vegetation_structure=none" (where "none" could include also be very sparse vegetation, almost not present) and in mountaineous regions (where there is often areas which are mixed pebbles and grass). Another key to indicate the same could be "vegetation_density" with values "dense" "sparse" (or "low"). Obviously this would also require to define that it is related to the main vegetation form, i.e. the one in the "landuse" (or "landcover") key. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
