[Tagging] [Talk-us] Large fire perimeter tagging?

Andrew Harvey andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 30 07:01:46 UTC 2020

So it seems then that what you're mapping here isn't so much the active
fire front, it's the burnt area given you want it to stick around after the
flames are out.

During Australia's fires last season, I did contemplate mapping active fire
fronts, given I could see with my own eyes where the flames were up to and
I could have done a more accurate job for a small area than what the
government authority was publishing at the time. However due to the fast
changing nature of it and temporary nature of the active front, I don't
think it's worth mapping.

For burnt areas and recovery progress, sure this is not temporary (could be
a few months to years for evidence on the ground) and it's not fast
changing, once an area is burnt it stays burnt. So yeah you could map it,
but from my experience in Australia this again wouldn't be worth it (not
saying that you shouldn't map it, the way isn't really harmful and I'm not
local, so not telling you what to do). The main reason here is that the
burn isn't uniform, patches are noticeably burnt to a higher degree than
others and some patches might be unaffected, and it can be hard to survey
this. It's also hard to know when to remove it from OSM, because after all
OSM doesn't contain historical features which aren't found on the ground
anymore, so at some point OpenHistoricalMap becomes more appropriate.

Satellites do a pretty good job of finding out which areas burned and to
what degree, so I'm happy mostly to just rely on rasters from satellite
instead of hand traced and vectors in OSM.

On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 16:30, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:

> It appears somewhat-established (in this thread) that data consumers both
> DO and WILL find a datum of a polygon tagged fire=perimeter to be useful.
> This might be for "remap HERE when newer imagery becomes available"
> purposes (to a mapper in the area like me), to "might want to avoid hiking
> in this area as some roads / trails may remain or be closed, and it can be
> quite dangerous with "stump-slump" causing trail failures / slippages..."
> purposes (to a hiker in the area like me).  Not to mention other reasons /
> purposes cited here.
> I'll say it once again:  such a fire=perimeter IS a real-world "thing,"
> represented in OSM by a lightweight datum that I find to be "worth it" to
> be in the map.  It serves both better-near-future-mapping purposes as well
> as end-user / map consumer purposes.  I find that "balance" (storage cost
> in the database, whether such a datum should or shouldn't be "in the map at
> all," its usefulness to diverse OSM audiences for various, useful
> purposes...) to have value, even significance (though I'm local, so I'll
> grant I'm biased).  It seems others find similar value, too and agree that
> "sharing" such data, as OSM does, is both valid and valuable (to some) data
> to map.
> After all, we don't want to "hold back people from using (such data) in
> creative, productive, or unexpected ways," do we?
> Thanks for great feedback here,
> SteveA
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200930/626ce76d/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list