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

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Wed Sep 30 16:36:47 UTC 2020

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 6:22 AM stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
> I’m not positive that this is true for the entire perimeter, but bulldozer-cleared areas, hand-dug trenches many meters wide (to prevent a fire “jumping” from one side of the perimeter to the other) and usage of cutlines (for power cables / towers) and roadways to establish part of a perimeter are all strategies I believe firefighters use to “build” such a fire perimeter.  This is much more clearly delineated in the real world than might be a bit of red tape on a tree.

Definitely, and more permanent as well.  My brother's place has a line
that was bulldozed down to bare rock in a firefighting operation in
1950. There's still a strip of bare rock there, because it takes
decades for enough duff and debris to accumulate to rebuild the soil.
(Moreover, the slope is steep, so the spring snowmelt tends to flush
away what has accumulated.) We still use the fire line to walk to the
back of the property. Nature is gradually rebuilding, but the
landcover there is still mostly ferns, mosses and lycopodia, although
there are a lot more perennial forbs and we're starting to see alders

> I think “burden” for a lightly-tagged polygon is hyperbole (exaggeration), but I do see the point that a sophisticated user who is curating data in, around or associated with such a polygon might find an overlay strategy to be ideal.  But doing so leaves out all other OSM users (many, besides the single user noted above) and all other “useful” reasons for the data being shared in the database (which might become many, but are now discussed as “at least two:  to better re-map and to warn users “there was a fire here, use care”). Perhaps we have identified an edge between where “data are better curated outside of OSM” and “data that seriously benefit by being shared and hence Inside of OSM.”  Who decides?  How?

I tend to have little patience with claims that features that are
visible in the field ought not to be mapped because they will "burden
the map".  Generally speaking, that means simply that those features
are not of interest to the claimant. I welcome correct mapping of any
observable feature, even ones that I'm highly unlikely to map or care
about. I don't think any of us has the right to dictate that another
mapper ought not to be interested in a given feature.

On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 8:29 AM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2020 at 09:58, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com> wrote:
>> I saw someone say “six to seven years” (as what might pass for “recovery” to a large degree) to have “taken root” and after living most of my life here, that sounds about right.
> It was I who said that.  I don't have your personal experience, but in a
> "seven degrees of Kevin Bacon" kind of way I have come to know a
> group of people on Facebook who avidly hike in the affected areas.  When
> discussing the fires and their possible aftermath they compare them to past
> fires and mention six to seven years for past recoveries.

If you consider replacing a stand of mature hemlocks with an alder
thicket to be 'recovery'.  (Substitute the successional stages of your
local ecosystem. Mostly where I hike, it's the mixed-deciduous forest
of eastern North America, transistioning to Canadian taiga at the
higher elevations, with alpine tundra on a few high peaks.)

73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

More information about the Tagging mailing list