Hi Julien, * How would you feel about building a proposal about forest_management_style=* ? To my great surprise, I noticed I kind of like mingling in the endless discussions at the tagging mailing list. So I would be willing to help out.
* Quantitative analysis of landuse mapping in Belgium: I did that. The idea was to generate a useful dataset of landuse at the level of the statistical sectors. So I made a classification of several layers (residential, nature, water, transport infrastructure). Then I did some GIS processing: to create polygons out of roads and POIs. Then I needed to choose in which layer to count the landuse, for example sometimes there's a huge residential area with everything just mapped on top of that. So then you need to decide if a park in a residential area is a park or a residential area. I can share method and result. We could set up a voice meeting on Riot ( https://riot.im/app/#/room/#osmbe:matrix.org) so others can join in case they're interested. * The end result should be a landuse convention, yes. 2017-04-27 9:51 GMT+02:00 Julien Minet <[email protected]>: > Thanks for your reactions! > > * About the tag natural=wood, I also think it is over-represented in > Belgium. Belgian forests are indeed not only managed for timber production > but also hunting, tourism and nature conservation, but often in an > integrated manner under the same areas (at least in theory!). Note that the > Natura 2000 program does not preclude at all that timber wood is produced! > See on this link how much forests in south of Wallonia are covered by > Natura 2000: http://geoportail.wallonie.be/walonmap#SHARE= > 4E2203C158780AB5E053D0AFA49D7D23. > <http://geoportail.wallonie.be/walonmap#SHARE=4E2203C158780AB5E053D0AFA49D7D23> > > * I did not talk about the landcover tag in my article but it'd be worth > talking more about it! > > * It would be interesting to quantitavely analyse the ways landuse is > mapped in Belgium. I'm thinking about it. Any ideas on how, what kind of > analysis are welcome... > > * Summarizing this discussion in osm.be could be nice. But why not also > create a "landuse convention" page on the OSM wiki > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions>? > > > Julien > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:26 AM, joost schouppe <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> * About forests, I tend to agree with the natural=wood not really >> existing in Belgium. The only exception I know of is a bit of the >> Zoniënwoud (Kersselaerplein) that has had "zero management" for 34 years >> now. >> But most natural=wood I've seen is wrong. >> >> Just recently, I changed the Bois de La Houssiere ( >> http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/50.6189/4.1948) from wood to >> forest. It's a bit of a special case: it's a Natura 2000 protected area, >> but it is also actively used as a forestry area. >> >> I agree with the comments above that landuse=forest for any kind of group >> of trees is annoying too. >> >> - In cases where you have residential areas in a forest, or wooded areas >> in gardens, maybe we should really encourage the use of the landcover tag? >> - In cases where forests are managed, but as some kind of nature reserve >> or natural area, maybe we could use a subtag to indicate the management >> style? That would allow to differentiate between real forestry and forests >> with nature-friendly management. You could use one of the many nature >> reserve tags of course, but I'm not sure all naturally managed forests are >> protected and the Bois de la Houssiere shows the opposite also exists. >> >> >> * On a more detailed note: I had never heard of the taxon tag, I've only >> used species before. I'm completely confused now :) >> And are the values REALLY comma separated, not " ; " seperated? >> >> * About OSM.be: we're still thinking about what exactly we want to use >> the Projects for - the fact we don't really know was shown quite clearly by >> Marc's latest article. >> >> I think we could have an OSM.be project on "Harmonizing tagging in >> OpenStreetMap". It would first explain really short how tagging works, and >> why it can be something problematic. Then it could define goals, one of >> which could be "harmonizing tagging practices about landuse mapping in >> Belgium". Next it could define a series of sub-projects, like "discussing >> and creating consensus about best practices" (with links to this discussion >> and Julien's article). Another one could be setting up a Maproulette task >> to check certain suspicious cases (like the hundreds of natural=grassland >> around the Bois de la Houssiere). Lastly, it should contain an invitation >> and specific pointers on how to participate in the project. >> >> 2017-04-26 5:16 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis <[email protected]>: >> >>> Julien, and others, >>> >>> thanks a lot for this text. I still have to go through all the >>> details, but here are already some remarks. >>> >>> - Me too, would love to see landuse=forest be used in a more strict >>> way, only for areas where timber is really used for commercial >>> purposes. It's even possible that at certain periods there are no >>> trees in such areas. For the rest I would love that landcover=trees >>> would be more accepted and rendered. >>> One of the reasons is that landuse=forest clashes with e.g. >>> landuse=residential in large private parks. But I fear too any people >>> stick to their "managed" definition and just want to see trees on the >>> default map. >>> >>> - Some mapper split a landuse=farmyard and use landuse=residential >>> around the farm itself. I do not do this. What do you think about this >>> ? >>> >>> - During one of my recent walks I found some areas like >>> https://xian.smugmug.com/OSM/OSM-2017/2017-04-02-Postel-AK/i-5D62hDt >>> some were larger than what you see on this picture, I think I would >>> use natural=grassland on those. Other suggestions ? It was hard to >>> take a better picture >>> >>> - Often it is better to use natural=tree_row instead of >>> landuse=forest/natural=wood IMHO. >>> >>> regards >>> >>> m >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Julien Minet <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Hi list, >>> > >>> > Following some discussions about landuse=farmland|meadow some times >>> ago in >>> > this list, I've written an article here >>> > (http://www.nobohan.be/2017/04/20/landuse-osm-belgium/) about land-use >>> > mapping in Belgium: what could be the best practices adapted to the >>> Belgian >>> > landscape. Of course, there's matter for discussions about that topic >>> ;-) >>> > >>> > I think this text could be used to make a page on >>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/, >>> since >>> > it discuss what are the local conventions for land-use mapping in >>> Belgium. >>> > >>> > Do you also want to put this text on osm.be, similarly to the Marc >>> Gemis >>> > articles? Maybe a better place for discussions... >>> > >>> > Cheers, >>> > >>> > Julien >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Talk-be mailing list >>> > [email protected] >>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Talk-be mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Joost Schouppe >> OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | >> Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn >> <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup >> <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Talk-be mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > -- Joost Schouppe OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
