<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Picking just Adam's question about mapping after a fire. [I also
very much support the idea that OSM ways should ideally have only
one primary tag and so agree that natural and boundary does not go
together.]<br>
<br>
I went through a similar self-dialogue where I am now in Sweden as
to what to with clear-cut areas. My conclusion was just ignore them
and still map as wood/forest. I think the same applies here.<br>
<br>
It remains woodland, just in a special state. And it opens a two
cans of worms: When does it stop? (Natural regeneration,
replanting). Highly impractical given the wildly different dates on
imagery commonly available to us.<br>
<br>
That said, cutting and fires have a huge impact on navigation
markers, aesthetic enjoyment of the countryside and more so it would
be "nice" to see some sort of mapping. I follow an OSM doctrine of
the "the more, the merrier" and see nothing wrong with experimenting
by adding separate polygons of burnt areas. Adding a burn year would
throw the question of "when does it stop being burnt?" from the
data to the renderer. Of course, the counter argument is that it
won't show on maps. But I remain hopeful that we will see a
federation of national level OSM maps rendered to suit local tastes
and requirements. Just musing.<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2021-10-08 04:28, EON4wd wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:000001d7bbec$1ed747a0$5c85d6e0$@eon4wd.com.au">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style>@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">Another
part of the question is how many trees before it can be
classified as such?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I
have been to the Grampians within the last 12 months and I
did not find any scorched area left. All trees had growth.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">If
I look at the satellite picture from the OSM id editor,
large areas look burnt. Look around Lake Wartook. All this
area is definitely not burnt now and I think should classify
as covered in trees. Other satellite images show this area
better.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">I
would agree that ‘natural’ areas should be separated from
‘boundary’ layers.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US">From:</span></b><span
lang="EN-US"> Adam Horan <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ahoran@gmail.com"><ahoran@gmail.com></a> <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, 8 October 2021 12:59 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> EON4wd <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:info@eon4wd.com.au"><info@eon4wd.com.au></a><br>
<b>Cc:</b> OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:talk-au@openstreetmap.org"><talk-au@openstreetmap.org></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [talk-au] Mapping tree cover<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">There is another aspect to your
question, which is how to map woods/trees after a fire?<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">You're right it looks like someone
has mapped the wooded areas as a relation with holes for
non-wooded areas<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9300964/history"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/9300964/history</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Some of the current gaps might be due
to recent fires, and I don't know if they should be
mapped as something else. Depending on the fire severity
then it's possible the woodland will regrow quickly,
slowly, or not for a long time. I assume there's some
precedent & convention based on the large fires in
the east a couple of years back.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Adam<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 11:33, Adam Horan
<<a href="mailto:ahoran@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">ahoran@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think you're asking the same
question as Andrew, but you possibly have different
viewpoints or opinions on it.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I see the map as a painting that's
becoming more detailed and accurate as time
progresses. In the beginning the map was blank, and
people added large areas of landcover just to get
something down. Mappers took conveniences like marking
a national park as all desert or all trees.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">However now that all the basics
have been done mappers are adding more detailed,
accurate information and using more
sophisticated tagging schemes.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">I think it's entirely right that we
map what's on the ground. If there's a 20m gap in the
trees for a road, or significant fire break, or
there's been clearing, then people should map that in
detail if they have time and inclination.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Also the trees tend not to respect
administrative boundaries, it's almost like they don't
know they're there... Tree cover extends beyond the
National Parks in a continuous run, and similarly
there are clearings, lakes, meadows, moorlands within
the parks.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">However the first step in mapping
this detail is to remove the blanket landcover from
the admin boundary.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Adam<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd
<<a href="mailto:info@eon4wd.com.au"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">info@eon4wd.com.au</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Hi,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Further
to Andrew Parkers question about forested areas.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
am also a casual user for uploading data and I
also create my own maps from the data.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">My
interest is in 4wd tracks.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">The
Grampians has had the ‘landcover – tree’ ‘areas’
changed which in my opinion is now not correct.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">See<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><a
href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit#map=16/-37.1268/142.3867</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">The
Grampians is a National park and is covered in
trees.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">There
are a number of rocks and rocky outcrops (lots
actually) and a few lakes and roads plus some
swamp and rock quarries, but generally speaking it
is completely covered in trees, everywhere,
including the rocky outcrops.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">I
suspect that some well meaning person has mapped
what they could see via a satellite image after a
fire went though.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Question,
How can I identify this person so that I can
contact them to be able to find out what they are
thinking?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Traditionally,
the whole area is mapped as tree cover and then
other features are added on top, such as the lakes
and roads.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Also
towards the SA border there are other treed areas
that have been very carefully traced out. Yet
traditionally the whole area is set with the fence
lines and tracks then marked on top.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Not
necessarily wrong, but tracing the exact line of
where the trees finish and the road side has been
cleared, is not really helpful. Or is it?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Thanks<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto">Ian
Winter<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-au mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>