[talk-au] Distinguish between National, State etc parks

[Craig Feuerherdt]

I am well aware of the issues between contradictory use of the term landuse.
I am currently involved in a project with the State Government re setting up
a "Land Use Information System". The definitions they have adopted are as
follows;

*Land use* - Land use means the purpose to which the land cover is
committed. Some land uses, such as agriculture, have a characteristic land
cover pattern. These usually appear in land cover classifications. Other
land uses, such as nature conservation, are not readily discriminated by a
characteristic land cover pattern. For example, where the land cover is
woodland, land use may be timber production or nature conservation.
*Land tenure* - Tenure is the form of an interest in land. Some forms of
tenure (such as pastoral leases or nature conservation reserves) relate
directly to land use and land management practice.
*Land cover* - Land cover refers to the physical surface of the earth,
including various combinations of vegetation types, soils, exposed rocks and
water bodies as well as anthropogenic elements, such as agriculture and
built environments. Land cover classes can usually be discriminated by
characteristic patterns using remote sensing.
*Land management practice* - Land management practice means the approach
taken to achieve a land use outcome - the 'how' of land use (eg cultivation
practices, such as minimum tillage and direct drilling). Some land
management practices, such as stubble disposal practices and tillage
rotation systems, may be discriminated by characteristic land cover patterns
and linked to particular issues.
*FROM: Guidelines for land use mapping in Australia: principles, procedures
and definitions, Edition 3, Commonwealth of Australia, 2006*

I believe the Australian guidelines have been derived from international
guidelines. The "natural=" and "landuse=" tags are confusing on the wiki as
they switch between land use and land cover (as defined above). It would be
good to document the Australian definition of the current tags so we get
some consistency. I am happy to start something if others wish to
contribute.

For the purpose of OSM I believe land use and land cover are the 2 important
things. (Not too fussed with land cover at this stage, more interested in
defining the boundary of the parks). I am happy to attribute polygons as
generic administrative boundaries for the moment as we can always come back
and attribute them as National, State etc parks later.

Craig

2010/1/5 Craig Feuerherdt <craigfeuerherdt at gmail.com>:
> > John is right about the distinction between the "landuse" & "natural"
> tags.
> > "landuse" is about what is on the ground (trees, farming etc). I am
> assuming
> > national/state/other parks/areas should be attributed with the "natural"
> > tag, but "natural=what"?
>
> This has been discussed several times on the main list.  The problem
> is that landuse is used for two (sometimes contradictory) purposes -
> what is one the ground (cover) and what it is used for (use).  Some
> landuse tags are one, some the other, some are both. There is a bit of
> a push to try and sort this out, but nothing has come of it yet that I
> know about.
>
> For large parks, I would think that you would want to map the
> boundaries as an admin boundary, and the landuse of the various parts
> of the park as a separate issue. It's not uncommon to have a single
> large batch of trees, some of which are in a park and some not, or in
> a separate park  (eg one national and one state).  And to have various
> parts of a park to have different landuse - recreation areas, natural
> preserves, etc.
>
> Stephen
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20100105/03d620a3/attachment.html>