[Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Thu Mar 14 21:04:19 UTC 2019


On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com> wrote:
> no:landcover=trees ?
> or, as the previous landcover/imagery show tress, was:landcover=trees

However you want to spell it.

I just saw two replies to Lorenzo that were suggesting that his source
data were unmappable because they didn't support a sufficiently
detailed taxonomy of landcover, and I wanted to point out that "no
trees here" is useful information that should be distinguished from
"we haven't yet looked to see if there are trees here."

"was:landcover=trees" is not something that I favour, because there's
also the useful combination, "no trees in the old imagery, and no
trees in the current imagery either", still without information about
whether one is looking at grass, scrub, heath, meadow, wetland or
farmland, which can't always be distinguished in orthoimages.  I
suppose that the "no:landcover=trees" COULD work, but I don't see
no:*=* in wide use, and suspect that it will be controversial.



More information about the Tagging mailing list