<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/9/20 5:51 pm, Mateusz Konieczny
via Tagging wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MIDY-RE--3-2@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>I am a bit dubious about value of updating fire=perimeter<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It is something that changes extremely quickly, we should<br>
</div>
<div>not encourage people to survey perimeter of ACTIVE fire,<br>
</div>
<div>OSM is doomed to be strictly worse source of fire perimeter<br>
</div>
<div>than alternative sources....<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>> fire has absolutely enormous impact to what we do and
might map here,<br>
</div>
<div>both present and future. The aftermath of this fire
(>85,000 acres this fire alone)<br>
</div>
<div>will last for decades, and for OSM to not reflect this in the
map<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The Australian fires have less long term significance as most of
the flora has mechanisms to cope with fire, some even needs fire
to propagate. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MIDY-RE--3-2@tutanota.com">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Obviously, we should (try to) update map where situation
changed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>We don't mapped parked vehicles unless they are 'permanent', same
should be adopted for fires, floods, earth quakes and volcanic
eruptions. <br>
</p>
<p>If there is no permanent effect then mapping it is at best a
temporary thing. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MIDY-RE--3-2@tutanota.com">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Delete building that will not be rebuild (mark them as
destroyed:building=*<br>
</div>
<div>until aerial imagery will update)<br>
</div>
<div>[deleting buildings and remapping them as they get
reconstructed may<br>
</div>
<div>be viable in cases of heavy mapper presence]<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Delete other permanently destroyed objects and so on.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>> Do we have landcover tags which could replace
landuse=forest<br>
</div>
<div>or natural=wood with something like natural=fire_scarred?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>AFAIK nothing established, see<br>
</div>
<div><a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-March/035435.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-March/035435.html</a><br>
</div>
<div>for related discussion about wind damage.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Note:</p>
<p>While you state "landuse=forest is used to tag tree covered area,
not for how land is used" others disagree with this statement and
use the tag to indicate how the land is used as would be indicated
by the key 'landuse'.</p>
<p>There is already a tag for a tree covered area "natural=wood" and
that is a better tag to use for tree covered areas. <br>
</p>
<p>Continued use of the key 'landuse' for things other than true
land use will simply result in the continued denigration of the
key with things like landuse=sand, landuse=scrub, landuse=mud and
so on. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MIDY-RE--3-2@tutanota.com">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sep 24, 2020, 23:30 by <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:steveaOSM@softworkers.com">steveaOSM@softworkers.com</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<div>I didn't get a single reply on this (see below), which I
find surprising, especially as there are currently even larger
fires that are more widespread all across the Western United
States.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I now ask if there are additional, appropriate polygons
with tags I'm not familiar with regarding landcover that might
be added to the map (as "landuse=forest" might be strictly
true now only in a 'zoning' sense, as many of the actual trees
that MAKE these forests have sadly burned down, or
substantially so).<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Considering that there are literally millions and millions
of acres of (newly) burned areas (forest, scrub, grassland,
residential, commercial, industrial, public, private...), I'm
surprised that OSM doesn't have some well-pondered and actual
tags that reflect this situation. My initial tagging of this
(simply tagged, but enormous) polygon as "fire=perimeter" was
coined on my part, but as I search wiki, taginfo and Overpass
Turbo queries for similar data in the map, I come up empty.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>First, do others think it is important that we map these? I
say yes, as this fire has absolutely enormous impact to what
we do and might map here, both present and future. The
aftermath of this fire (>85,000 acres this fire alone) will
last for decades, and for OSM to not reflect this in the map
(somehow, better bolstered than a simple, though huge, polygon
tagged with fire=perimeter, start_date and end_date) seems OSM
"cartographically misses something." I know that HOT mappers
map the "present- and aftermath-" of humanitarian disasters,
I've HOT-participated myself. So, considering the thousands of
structures that burned (most of them homes), tens of thousands
of acres which are burn-scarred and distinctly different than
their landcover, millions of trees (yes, really) and even
landuse is now currently tagged, I look for guidance — beyond
the simple tag of fire=perimeter on a large polygon.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Second, if we do choose to "better" map these incidents and
results (they are life- and planet-altering on a grand scale)
how might we choose to do that? Do we have landcover tags
which could replace landuse=forest or natural=wood with
something like natural=fire_scarred? (I'm making that up, but
it or something like it could work). How and when might we
replace these with something less severe? On the other hand,
if it isn't appropriate that we map any of this, please say
so.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thank you, especially any guidance offered from HOT
contributors who have worked on post-fire humanitarian
disasters,<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>SteveA<br>
</div>
<div>California (who has returned home after evacuation,
relatively safe now that this fire is 100% contained)<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On Aug 29, 2020, at 7:20 PM, stevea
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:steveaOSM@softworkers.com"><steveaOSM@softworkers.com></a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>Not sure if crossposting to talk-us is correct, but it is
a "home list" for me.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've created a large fire perimeter in OSM from public
sources, <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.osm.org/way/842280873">http://www.osm.org/way/842280873</a> . This is a huge
fire (sadly, there are larger ones right now, too), over 130
square miles, and caused the evacuation of every third
person in my county (yes). There are hundreds, perhaps
thousands of structures, mostly residential homes, which
have burned down and the event has "completely changed"
giant redwoods in and the character of California's oldest
state park (Big Basin).<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This perimeter significantly affects landuse, landcover
and human patterns of movement and activity in this part of
the world for a significant time to come. </div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The effect will depend on what was there before the fire and what
is there now, it will not be consistent as one stone building may
burn down while another timber church may survive (my examples are
actual - stone building was my uncles home and the church was the
church he attended ... surrounded by trees and spared). <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:MIDY-RE--3-2@tutanota.com">
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<blockquote>
<div>It is a "major disaster." I'm curious how HOT teams might
delineate such a thing (and I've participated in a HOT fire
team, mapping barns, water sources for helicopter dips and
other human structures during a large fire near me), I've
simply made a polygon tagged fire=perimeter, a name=* tag
and a start_date. I don't expect rendering, it's meant to be
an "up to right about here" (inside the polygon is/was a
burning fire, outside was no fire). I wouldn't say it is
more accurate than 20 to 50 meters on any edge, an "across a
wide street" distance to be "off" is OK with me, considering
this fire's size, but if a slight skew jiggles the whole
thing into place better, feel free to nudge. It's the
tagging I'm interested in getting right, and perhaps
wondering if or even that people enter gigantic fires that
will significantly change landscape for some time into OSM,
as I have done. This will affect my local mapping, as a
great much has burned. Even after starting almost two weeks
ago, as of 20 minutes ago this fire is 33% contained, with
good, steady progress. These men and women are heroes.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To me, this is a significant polygon in my local mapping:
it is a "huge thing" that is a major feature on a map,
especially right now. I firmly believe it belongs in OSM for
many reasons and want it tagged "correctly." Yes, there are
other maps that show this, I believe OSM should have these
data, too, as this perimeter will affect much (in the real
world) and much newer, updated mapping in OSM going forward.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Of what use is the data to mappers and/or data consumers? <br>
</p>
<p>For mappers it may help to know what areas require remapping
(buildings etc). <br>
</p>
<p>Data consumers? I would think the local authorities already have
the fire area well mapped form more current information than OSM
has. <br>
</p>
</body>
</html>