[Tagging] RFC - landcover clearing

[marc marc]

+1
the current proposal of the page seems to me to be a good promise to 
improve the current situation while remaining realistic with the fact 
that some mapper do not always have all the information or all the 
knowledge to make the perfect solution.
in this sense the page is well enough to push good practices forward 
while giving a scheme for imperfect v1 but allowing to have useful 
information for future improvement (I can easily imagine a 
StreetComplete quest that would ask a local contributor what
exactly the hole in the forest consists of)

the page only need to be moved to /Proposed_features/ :)

Le 09. 08. 18 à 00:27, Warin a écrit :
> There are some who would then say that a 'clearing' that is made by man 
> should not be in the key 'natural' but in the key 'man_made'.
> 
> A 'clearing' may not have ever had the surrounding vegetation - an area 
> of rock for example.
> 
> The 'clearing' is about a change in the land cover, not about an 
> absence, an absence would be 'space' - a vacuum ...there will be 
> something there, but arm chair mappers may not be able to identify 
> either the surrounding vegetation nor the areas vegetation.
> 
> On 09/08/18 02:04, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> what about natural=clearing? I don’t see “clearing” as a landcover 
>> value that suits. Landcover is about what is there physically, 
>> “clearing” is about the absence of what was there before.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>>
>>
>> sent from a phone
>>
>> On 6. Aug 2018, at 02:11, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I have been looking at the values used with the landuse key to try 
>>> and stop land covers becoming regarded as a legitimate use of the key 
>>> landuse.
>>>
>>>
>>> One strange value I came across was 'clearing'. No OSM wiki document.
>>>
>>> I resolved this to mean a change in land cover usually from trees to 
>>> a 'clear' area.
>>>
>>> Most of these look to be from HOT mapping.
>>>
>>>
>>> Other instances of the value 'clearing' are natural=clearing 
>>> andwood=clearing.
>>>
>>> So I am thinking that these would best combined into the one tag  
>>> landcover=clearing
>>>
>>> A proposal page is ready for comments - link - 
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover%3Dclearing
>>>
>>> The basics are :
>>>
>>> Definition: An area where surrounding larger vegetation, such as 
>>> trees, are not present. This provides more light than the surrounding 
>>> area. It may have lower vegetation growing, or it may be an outcrop 
>>> of rock.
>>>
>>> Rationale:
>>> Defines use of already existing value and suggest better ways of 
>>> mapping these features. It is meant to encourage better mapping and 
>>> suggest that this tag is a last resort.
>>>
>>> Key
>>> The key landcover is use as the 'best fit' as it marks the lack of a 
>>> surrounding land cover, so it is directly related to a land cover.
>>> The area could all ready have a land use - part of a forestry area 
>>> for example. The area could have been made by man or nature so 
>>> neither of the keys natural or man_made would suit all situations.
>>>
>>> How to map
>>> The section on 'how to map' gives 4 options of how to map a clearing; 
>>> map what is there, map what is surrounding, map both what is there 
>>> and surrounding or map with landcover=clearing.
>>> Asking a mapper not to map this feature is not a good idea, mappers 
>>> should be encouraged to map not discouraged. If a mapper has found 
>>> this tag page then it is best to document better ways to tag the 
>>> feature with this tag being the lest desirable result that maps the 
>>> information rather than not mapping the information.
>>> The listed order is a compromise. The better mapping ones come before 
>>> landcover=clearing to discourage it use. The simplest option first - 
>>> map what is there - as that is the easiest option. If they cannot 
>>> determine what is there then the next option - map the surrounds. 
>>> Then the combination of the first two. Then finally the last option 
>>> and least desirable. Hopefully this causes some though on what they 
>>> are mapping, rather than just using the tag.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>