On 12/9/22 19:34, Little Maps wrote:
Nev, great initiative. I’ve been contemplating how the new boundary=forest could be used in Vic and S NSW. Rather than view it a tag to use in addition to land use=forest, I saw it as a useful replacement. By replacing landuse=forest with boundary = forest, we could generate State Forest (SF) tenure boundaries, similar to conservation reserves, and remove all ambiguity about whether landuse=forest infers a vegetation type (forest/wood), a landuse (forestry) or a tenure (State Forest). (It means all 3 things to different people). We could then accurately map SF tenures independent of vegetation type and (perhaps?) the finer-scale mapping of actual landuse. We could also more accurately map vegetation types in SFs, whereas atm, it’s a complete mess to map scrub, grassland, etc in SFs, especially where they cross SF boundaries. Also, it clearly acknowledges that only a small part of many SFs is actually used (and can be used) for timber production. It seems to me we have a fantastic opportunity to greatly reduce the horrendous vagaries that are implicit in landuse=forest across Aus SFs if we use boundary=forest to apply to tenure, and natural=wood, scrub, etc to apply to the vegetation type, within SFs. In reality, we have little way of mapping which parts of many SFs are available for logging unless we import far more detailed datasets from gov agencies. I look forward to other thoughts on the matter. Cheers Ian
There are some 'private' forestry areas too, at least in NSW ... these are visible as they are not native and in organized rows, so easy to identify.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
