<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/8/20 7:17 am, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP_2vPj=0Q0WsTz4-kdKO+jwdgmQV28NTw7VXcynRvoVCimXUA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Everyone, the voting period for
natural=bare_ground is still open for 4 more days.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would recommend voting "no" on the current
definition, unfortunately.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As mentioned above, the current definition is far too
broad, and could easily be construed to include areas
under construction, areas of bare soil due to use by
people as a pathway or road area, </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
These are 'land use' not 'land cover' and can be tagged separately.
They are orthogonal. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP_2vPj=0Q0WsTz4-kdKO+jwdgmQV28NTw7VXcynRvoVCimXUA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>and many sorts of arid and semi-natural areas,
including those that are partially covered by shrubs,
heath, grass or other sparse vegetation, </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The question is, what is dominate? An area of trees that is
mostly trees should be tagged as trees, if it is mostly bear earth
then tagged as bare earth...</p>
<p>OSM already has areas of combined trees and shrubs where the
general guide used is tag what is dominate. No need to single this
proposal with partial coverings as it applies to all of the
present OSM tagging. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP_2vPj=0Q0WsTz4-kdKO+jwdgmQV28NTw7VXcynRvoVCimXUA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>or even areas of farmland that are currently fallow.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Again a land use not a land cover. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP_2vPj=0Q0WsTz4-kdKO+jwdgmQV28NTw7VXcynRvoVCimXUA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please see the discussion and objections on <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Ground</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think it is a good idea to have a way to tag bare
soil which is not sand (natural=sand) or mostly stones
(natural=shingle/scree) or mud, but we need a clear,
limited definition which does not fit with human-use areas
like roads, dirt parking lots, construction sites,
abandoned quarries etc, and there needs to be more
consideration about when the tag should be used instead of
natural=heath and natural=scrub in arid regions where
there are scattered bushes.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For the proposal author, I would suggest mapping some
local features in your area which would fit the proposed
definition, and then come back with photos plus aerial
imagery of the areas which ought to be mapped with this
tag. So far it has been mostly hypothetical, which makes
it hard to understand which sorts of landscapes would
qualify for this tag.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I think this is similar to the tags surface=earth and
surface=dirt, both are poorly defined. <br>
</p>
<p>Perhaps these 2 tags would be better as surface=soil??? <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The proposal sates "An area covered by soil" so it should be
natural=soil. <br>
</p>
<p>The description could then be "<span class="ILfuVd"><span
class="hgKElc">The upper layer of the planet earth being a
material typically consisting of a mixture of organic remains,
clay, and rock particles.</span></span>" ??? <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Of course the usual exclusions apply;</p>
<p>majority is soil</p>
<p>where a more detailed value applies, use it eg natural=clay if
the majority of the area is covered by clay. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><span class="ILfuVd NA6bn"><span class="hgKElc"><br>
</span></span></p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP_2vPj=0Q0WsTz4-kdKO+jwdgmQV28NTw7VXcynRvoVCimXUA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Joseph Eisenberg</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 5:58
AM Martin Koppenhoefer <<a
href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
sent from a phone<br>
<br>
> On 27. Jul 2020, at 13:41, Michael Montani <<a
href="mailto:michael.montani@un.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">michael.montani@un.org</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> I eventually found on-the-ground images of the feature I
would like to propose / map.<br>
<br>
<br>
are these suggested to be represented as polygons? How would
the border be determined? I looks from the imagery as if there
is a smooth transition of these „features“ and neighbouring
land which isn’t completely bare. Did you try to map some of
these and if yes, could you please post a link to an area
where a few are mapped?<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
Transitions from, say, trees to shrubs also occur. The guide is to
map what is dominate, when domination changes is where the 'border'
is. OSM does not have tagging for mixed areas, if you want it ..
propose it?<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP_2vPj=0Q0WsTz4-kdKO+jwdgmQV28NTw7VXcynRvoVCimXUA@mail.gmail.com">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
Cheers Martin </blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>