[talk-au] Competing relations - similar areas.

[Warin]

Ok,

I have made the changes ... but left both relations just in case I have made an error!

Relation5929494 removed landuse=forest added natural=wood, added 2 inners from the 'old' relationship 5929493

Relation 5929493 - removed tags so it will not render added note=left for checking

I did compare this area to LPI Imagery ... and it does not appear very good.
I suspect the same can be said for many large areas of land cover.
They do change over time and some of it looks to be logging too!
I also compared it to the LPI base map and some ways are close if not exactly boundaries of parks/state boundaries ... and the trees don't stop there.
So there is room for 'improvement' of the wooded area.

I'm experimenting with JOSM plugin scanaerial  to gain an automated clickathon of the wooded/unwooded areas... not much luck there so far.

On 7/25/2016 1:06 PM, Warin wrote:
> I have not examined each way for their use in other relationships ... I expect some of them are.
> In general I would prefer to separate the 'natural' relationships (woods, lakes etc) from administrate ones
>   simply because any changes to one probably should not change the other.
> And it would be easy for a mapper to make a change thinking they were only effecting one feature.
> There is a saying 'one feature, one osm entity'? I kind of like that.
>
>
> On 7/25/2016 11:31 AM, cleary wrote:
>> I don't recall that particular edit but I recall some edits of 
>> administrative boundaries, including national parks and state forests 
>> where I was trying to disentangle landcover from the administrative 
>> boundaries, but I tried to leave the landcover or natural=wood areas 
>> as closely as I could to what I had found.  I agree that 
>> landuse=forest should be for commercial forest land use (including 
>> state forests)  but should therefore not be used for national 
>> parks.   If I've made any errors, please correct them  - now and any 
>> other instance. Thanks.
>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016, at 09:32 AM, Warin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have noticed there are two relations with similar areas and both 
>>> tagged landuse=forest.
>>> Relation5929494 created by down12under changeset 37053382 2/7/16 source given as 'aerial imagery', later edited by cleary and TheSwavu.
>>>
>>> Relation 5929493 created by down12under changeset 36918772 2/1/16 source given as 'aerial imagery', later edited by cleary.
>>>
>>> _Amalgamation_
>>>
>>> Looking closely .. for example way 396488797 is used in both relations! So as far as I can see these, in part, are duplicates.
>>>
>>> I think these should be amalgamated into one relation.
>>> The outers of this relation should use the greater area of the two original relations.
>>> The inners of this relation should use all inners of the two relations combining where required.
>>>
>>> Where there is doubt, bing imagery could be used to resolve and issues.
>>>
>>> _Tags_
>>>
>>> The source tag could be applied with "source=by down12under using 'aerial imagery later modifications using Bing imagery or as note on the individual way"?
>>>
>>> As the areas cover, in part, designated national park/s the tag could be changed to natural=wood as landuse=forest implies the commercial use of the forest (land use).
>>> Aerial or satellite imagery only tells us land cover not land use so I think natural=wood is a better match.
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20160726/4821b931/attachment.html>