[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Jun 13 07:14:24 UTC 2018


On 13/06/18 16:03, Peter Elderson wrote:
> Would it be possible to get the osm-community in Belgium to agree on 
> one tagging principle for trees/wood/forest?
> And get it done that way?
>
> 2018-06-13 7:47 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com 
> <mailto:marc.gemis at gmail.com>>:
>
>     On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:57 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>     <matkoniecz at tutanota.com <mailto:matkoniecz at tutanota.com>> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > 12. Jun 2018 13:22 by marc.gemis at gmail.com
>     <mailto:marc.gemis at gmail.com>:
>     >
>     > How do people in GIS know how many square meter of forest there
>     is in
>     > a country based on OSM-data ?
>     >
>     >
>     > I would start from something like: total area of area covered by
>     >
>     > landuse=forest and natural=wood
>     >
>     > after excluding very small areas.
>     >
>     >
>
>     won't work, see e.g.
>     https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932&layers=N
>     <https://www.openstreetmap.org/search?query=waasmunster#map=16/51.1215/4.0932&layers=N>
>     that's not a forest, that are a lot of private gardens with trees
>     in it.
>
Exclude area with landuse=residential ??
>
>
>     >
>     >  Is the data suited for that ?
>     >
>     >
>     > Depends on (a) where (b) what kind of accuracy is needed, forest
>     in many regions
>     >
>     > are unmapped or partially mapped.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > How can I find those places with OSM data ?
>     >
>     >
>     > What you exactly want to find?
>
>
>     A forest is a place where you can walk, ride, cycle. Not someones
>     private backyard.
>     Our government talks often about there is so many square meter of
>     forest in Belgium.
>     It's not sufficient to subtract all small areas, you need to subtract
>     somehow everything that is not a forest (see above)
>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > I thought I had an answer for all the above questions when
>     > natural=wood, landuse=forest, landcover=trees where used "properly".
>
And you might consider landuse=logging too ...
>
>     >
>     >
>     > No, you cant. As there are conflicting tagging methods
>
>     If everything was "properly" mapped with those 3 tags I could come up
>     with an algorithm. Not with the current mess of course.
>
Proper? Who says what is proper?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180613/dc5dabd6/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list