[Tagging] RFC - landcover clearing

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Aug 8 23:42:05 UTC 2018

On 09/08/18 08:47, marc marc wrote:
> +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/ :)

Opps!! Thanks. I have copied it... and placed warning on the top of the original page with a link.

New copied page is at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landcover%3Dclearing

I am yet to contact the original HOT task for the area that I have covered as trees (with holes).
{Too many things to do ! :)}

It looks now to be visible https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/528264806#map=13/8.4987/-83.4343
Zooming out and the 'clearings' disappear but you can then see the extent of the trees - at least as far as I have gone.
Zoom in and you can see more detail of the 'clearings'.

> 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.
>>>> __________________

More information about the Tagging mailing list