[Imports] Florida Landuse Import

[Adam Franco]

I'm not local to Florida and have minimal local knowledge of its landscape,
so take these comments with a grain of salt -- or a tablespoon of brackish
water ;-)...

*A few general comments:*

*Are these areas built as multipolygons with shared ways on the edges or as
single-way areas with overlapping borders?*
While multipolygons with shared borders can be more difficult to construct
in an import, they can be much easier for later mappers to refine
<https://youtu.be/x7SPb0JtheA> and debug <https://youtu.be/87nRQHuatOE>
than untangling overlapping ways.

*Which landuse/landcovers will be joined at edges vs potentially
overlapping?*
It is generally OK in my opinion to join landcover and landuse if they are
exclusive, but often landuse (e.g. residential areas) will overlap with
landcover (e.g. woodlands). What choices are you making in terms of joining
versus not-joining features? No matter what though, please do not connect
landuse/landcover to roads or boundaries.

*Tagging feedback:*

*3100: Herbaceous (Dry Prairie) => natural=heath *
Reading through this US Fish & Wildlife description
<https://www.fws.gov/verobeach/msrppdfs/dprairie.pdf> it sounds like these
might be natural=grassland or a mottled mixture of natural=grassland and
natural=heath. I've never seen one myself though.

*3300: Mixed Upland Nonforested => natural=wood*
This seems incongruous from the description, but maybe I'm missing
something...

*various => landuse=forest*
While natural=wood and landuse=forest
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforest> are generally
seen as synonyms, landuse=forest has slightly more weight toward logging
and forestry than just "there are trees here". My recommendation is to use
natural=wood for "There be trees" if that is what the data-source is saying
and landuse=forest for tree plantations and more actively managed stands of
trees.

*6120: Mangrove Swamps => natural=wood *
Why not natural <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural>=wetland
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dwetland> + wetland
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:wetland>=mangrove? See:
Tag:wetland=mangrove
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wetland%3Dmangrove>


*1650: Reclaimed Lands => natural=scrub 7410: Rural land in transition
without positive indicators of intended activity => natural=scrub*
Is this accurate? Might rural land be a mixture of scrub, grassland, wood,
and other natural succession processes? If the actual landcover is unknown
and the landuse is unknown it might be better to not import these at all.


*6170: Mixed Wetland Hardwoods =>  landuse=forest 6460: Mixed Scrub-shrub
Wetland => natural=scrub *
The description makes it sound like these should have some sort of wetland
tagging...

*6430: Wet Prairies natural=wetland *
Maybe a good candidate for wetland=wet_meadow
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wetland%3Dwet_meadow>?

*8320: Electrical Power Transmission Lines => landuse=meadow*
This seems like it may be an incorrect assumption. The wiki describes
landuse=meadow
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:landuse%3Dmeadow> as "Used to
tag an area of land primarily vegetated by grass plus other non-woody
plants, mainly used for hay (meadow) or for grazing animals (pasture)."

Are transmission lines mowed in Florida? In the northeast they are cleared
of trees but often succeed into a mottled mixture of natural=scrub and
natural=grassland. Even if mowed, landuse=meadow is more about agriculture
than simply being grass-covered. I'd suggest tagging actual landcover for
these if known or excluding them from the import.

On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:38 PM Hiausirg <grussausbw at gmx.de> wrote:

> Hello,
> I am currently planning an landuse import covering (nearly) the complete
> US State of Florida. The data is published by the Florida Department of
> Enviromental Protection (=Public Domain) at
> https://geodata.dep.state.fl.us/datasets/FDEP::current-landuse-landscape-support-index-lsi/about
>
> The data quality is extremely good. I think it is save to say that it is
> far better than at least half of all existing landuse data in the US. A
> distinction is made between normal farmland and fallow (unused) farmland.
> Cutlines in forests for power-/pipelines are precisely cut out, and so on.
> Which tags in the original dataset have been changed to which OSM tags is
> listed on the wiki page:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Hiausirg/Florida_Landuse_Import#Tagging_Plans
>
> The best way is to get convinced of the quality of the data for yourself:
> https://www.mediafire.com/file/53cbubxbkikcwi2/FLLanduse_NWF_Part3.osm/file
> and
> https://www.mediafire.com/file/8476ovczmljikvu/FLLanduse_NWF_Part7.osm/file
> are two examples. Simply drag & drop into JOSM.
> 5 days ago I already posted about this project in the #local-florida Slack
> channel. I also wrote directly to several people who map a lot in Florida.
> There was almost only positive feedback about the data quality. The only
> problem is that there are relatively often overlaps of roads and land
> covers like natural=wood or similar. However, it only happens with minor
> roads, and I don't think it's a big problem per se.
>
> Conflation will be done largely manually with the JOSM validator. Exact
> steps are described on the wikipage linked above. Since the state is in
> most locations completely empty (regarding landuses), this shouldn't take
> too long. Areas with already good coverage (Jacksonville, Orlando,
> Tallahassee & Gainesville) won't be touched.
>
> Any questions?
> Greetings
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imports mailing list
> Imports at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20220222/062ca94b/attachment.htm>