[Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage
tod at fitchdesign.com
Thu Mar 14 21:29:00 UTC 2019
> On Mar 14, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Why not landcover=vegetation as an equivalent to highway=road? It would indicate that some type of plant matter is growing on it but exactly what is not yet known. Once more information (field survey? low level aerial survey/photos?) is available then a more specific landcover could be applied.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
More information about the Tagging