> > global coverage datasets tend to be so generalized and large scale that > they often do not fit well with the human scale that we survey on the > ground. >
In my area of the world, https://soilgrids.org/ shows about 600ft, and the types pretty well match up with the ground around here. So, well within walking distance (for me, a mile radius ) scale. As data accumulates from repeated SAR passes, that will probably drop considerably in the next few years. URBAN-TEP ( https://urban-tep.eu/puma/tool/?id=574795484&lang=en )has global data ranging from 5 meters to tens of meters. And these are derived normalized data, the raw observational data is much better in some regions ( See their projects page ). The resolution is more determined by maintaining a global 90% bar than the underlying observations. Not your backyard, but considerably better than what has been available: "Worldwide inventory of human settlements (urban & rural) using one global coverage of SAR data with 0.4 arcsec (~12 m) ground resolution collected by the satellites TerraSAR-X / TanDEM-X in 2011-2013." Michael Patrick <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link> <#m_-2629699592009406589_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging