[Tagging] Mapping deforestation wikipage
graemefitz1 at gmail.com
Thu Mar 14 22:38:04 UTC 2019
On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 at 07:30, Tod Fitch <tod at fitchdesign.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 14, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com>
> > 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
Or for an even more general "I don't know what I'm looking at"!
landcover=undetermined / unknown?
"That particular area is covered by trees, that area over there has
buildings on it, but when I looked at this area, on this day, I couldn't
work out what the landcovering was, so someone will have to check it again"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging