<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@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;}
/* Style Definitions */
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;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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]--></head><body lang=EN-AU link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><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 <ahoran@gmail.com> <br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, 8 October 2021 12:59 PM<br><b>To:</b> EON4wd <info@eon4wd.com.au><br><b>Cc:</b> OpenStreetMap-AU Mailing List <talk-au@openstreetmap.org><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">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">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">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">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">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br><a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><o:p></o:p></p></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>