[Tagging] Mapping deforestation
61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue Mar 12 00:07:23 UTC 2019
On 12/03/19 10:18, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> > “We will would like to map land cover in an area near the Amazonian
> I’d recommend that you start by mapping the existing forested areas
> with natural=wood or landuse=forest,
From aerial imagery I would recommend you do not use landuse=forest as
it cannot be determined if the area has some human use to the tress. Use
natural=wood and if you desire landcover=trees.
> and areas of water with natural=water and water=lake / =river, or
> natural=wetland for swamps, marshes, mangroves, bogs, etc.
> If you can clearly identify other types of vegetation (from aerial
> imagery, I assume?) there are several specific tags that can be used.
> You should not tag something non-specific like “clearing” or “bare
> Natural=scrub is used for areas mainly covered shrubs or bushes, eg
> woody plants about 1m to 3m in height, natura=heath is for dwarf
> shrubs (probably only found in the high Andes on Colombia),
> natural=grassland can be used for alpine areas above the treeline
> (though these may also be heath or wetland=bog). Areas of rocky land
> without vegetation can be natural=bare_rock, =sand, =scree, =shingle
> The most relevant tags for landcover with heavy human use in Colombia
> might be landuse=orchard for palm oil, banana, and coffee plantations,
> landuse=farmland for seasonal or annual crops, landuse=meadow for
> pasture and hay fields, landuse=residential / =industrial for
> developed areas with houses / industry.
> The idea should be to map as specifically as possible. If you are not
> certain of the type of vegetation or landuse for a certain area, then
> leave that place untagged for now. Someday a local person can add the
> proper tagging by visiting that place in person.
> Re: the landcover tags. These have not been approved by the community,
> though there is a small, vocal minority that wants to use them instead
> of the established tags that start with landuse= and natural=. I would
> not use these, because there are much more widely used equivalents
> that are approved or in use for many years.
> Don’t use landcover=trees; use natural=wood or landuse=forest.
There is nothing wrong with dual tagging... use both natural=wood and
landcover=trees, for example of a tree area, indicates what is there in
as clear a manner as possible.
Nit picking - landuse=* should only be used to indicate the human use of
the land, it should not indicate a land cover.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging