[Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage

[marc marc]

adding top-level categories to the landcover value is maybe
the best idea, it allow incremential mapping :
- you 'll add true value depending of your "level" and the quality
of the source
- another day another mapper may improve it.

Le 14.03.19 à 22:33, Lorenzo Stucchi a écrit :
> Hi all,
> 
> sorry I change the idea from just landcover to sat_landcover because I 
> saw it as reasonable for a draft landcover in an area for which I don’t 
> know exactly if what I’m mapping is a meadow or a cultivated land or 
> something similar, but I understand in which of the categories it fall, 
> as we explain into the wiki page.
> 
> So if you think that it's better to return back to just landcover for me 
> it’s fine.
> 
> We just want to point the problem and the importance of a theme like 
> deforestation in a big forest and his effect on climate change. But if 
> there are no data about how is possible to do that?
> 
> So from this reason, we have this proposal after reading pages of the 
> wiki trying to find the best solution to tag these elements. We don’t 
> want to create anything that can be forgotten after our event instead, 
> we think that this can be an important issue that can be taken care of 
> part of OSM community.
> 
> Any help is welcome and please try to remain focus on the starting point 
> and not diverge like in the previous thread. Sorry we care very much on 
> this project and we believe in the his importance.
> 
> Thanks Tod for this point this is what we are exactly talking about.
> 
> Best,
> Lorenzo
> 
>> Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 22:29, Tod Fitch <tod at fitchdesign.com 
>> <mailto:tod at fitchdesign.com>> ha scritto:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 14, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com 
>>> <mailto: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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>