Thank you Harry, no - sorry - the landuse was mainly me; afterward I can explain why it's beneficial to mash landuse on the map for response purposes. Yes, it will need cleaned up and Murry and others are making good progress.
=Russ From: Harry Wood [mailto:m...@harrywood.co.uk] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:45 AM To: Tom Taylor; Russell Deffner Cc: 'OSM US Talk'; 'hot'; 'Murry McEntire' Subject: Re: [HOT] [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update Here's a wiki page for coordination. Please feel free to edit http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Black_Forest_Fire_2013 Eugghh! The landuse data around here is a mess. Government data import I presume.... On the plus side. There's plenty to get stuck in and work on. I recommend JOSM for dealing with kind of tangled mess. Harry _____ From: Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com> To: Russell Deffner <russdeff...@gmail.com> Cc: 'OSM US Talk' <talk-us@openstreetmap.org>; 'hot' <h...@openstreetmap.org>; 'Murry McEntire' <murry.mcent...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, 14 June 2013, 16:55 Subject: Re: [HOT] [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update natural=wood is the obvious way to me. It's what I use here in Ottawa, Canada. On 14/06/2013 11:19 AM, Russell Deffner wrote: > Just for the record, I don't disagree with Murry's suggestion and he and I > have talked about this face-to-face. And I think you'd be the most local > expert on this one, please feel free to change my tags. > > > > Thanks! > > > > From: Murry McEntire [mailto:murry.mcent...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 9:07 AM > To: Paul Norman > Cc: hot; OSM US Talk > Subject: Re: [Talk-us] Black Forest Fire Update > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:26 AM, Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com> wrote: > > What do you think we should do with what I would normally tag natural=wood? > There's plenty of woods in the residential areas that aren't mapped, but I'm > not sure how to handle them. > > > > > > I was hoping long time users and experts would jump on this question. It > bothers me a little that land_use=forest is used in the area of the Black > Forest community as there hasn't been any real managed forest in the area > for decades. Historically it was the area that was logged to build early > Colorado Springs, and was over harvested so was no longer a forest. Then it > was replanted and brought back - but was also largely subdivided, so it is > now largely woodland covering residential lots. The lots are large, many 5 > acres and up. It now does not seem to fit the definition of landuse=forest > of "Managed forest or woodland plantation". > > The land cover is definitely trees in much of the area so natural=wood > certainly fits and doen't conflict with landuse=residential but can > complement it. natural=wood "Woodland where timber production does not > dominate use." > > > How landuse=forest is presented on renderers makes a resident of the Western > United States think of National Forest land, as that is what other maps do. > It might lead some, rightly or wrongly, to think of hikes and camping can be > done there, but it is mostly peoples yards. The parks and open space of the > area have been marked very well (and are mostly forested). The county > contains much actual National Forest, just not in this area. > > I am also aware that the tags can be badly defined, I'm trying to change > that elsewhere now, but landuse=forest and natural=wood look to be good > definitions. So experts, what is the proper way to map this? I'm just a > casual mapper in OSM since April :-) > > Murry > > > > > _______________________________________________ > HOT mailing list > h...@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot > _______________________________________________ HOT mailing list h...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/hot
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
