[talk-au] Mapping tree cover

[Andrew Harvey]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 09:22, EON4wd <info at eon4wd.com.au> wrote:

> Question, How can I identify this person so that I can contact them to be
> able to find out what they are thinking?
>

If you're using the default iD editor, select a feature, then in the bottom
left there is a link to view on OSM, which shows in the left panel who
changed it last, but you can select "View history" at the bottom of the
panel to see what and who changed it.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 13:04, Adam Horan <ahoran at gmail.com> wrote:

> Some of the current gaps might be due to recent fires, and I don't know if
> they should be mapped as something else. Depending on the fire severity
> then it's possible the woodland will regrow quickly, slowly, or not for a
> long time. I assume there's some precedent & convention based on the large
> fires in the east a couple of years back.
>

I would argue it's still natural=wood after a fire since some trees will
survive and regrow. Tracking when it last burnt and the burn
intensity might be asking too much for OSM and might be best done as a
raster overlay potentially derived from satellite.

On Fri, 8 Oct 2021 at 13:32, EON4wd <info at eon4wd.com.au> wrote:

> Another part of the question is how many trees before it can be classified
> as such?
>

In Australia we have closed forest (dense canopy, little sunlight reaches
the ground), open forest (no continuous canopy), woodland (lower tree
density) which are all natural=wood. Then we have closed and open scrubland
(natural=scrub), heath (natural=heath), and more. Even up to 20m between
tree crowns could still be open woodlands and tagged as natural=wood.


> I have been to the Grampians within the last 12 months and I did not find
> any scorched area left. All trees had growth.
>

A good argument for leaving natural=wood intact after fires.


> If I look at the satellite picture from the OSM id editor, large areas
> look burnt. Look around Lake Wartook. All this area is definitely not burnt
> now and I think should classify as covered in trees. Other satellite images
> show this area better.
>
> I would agree that ‘natural’ areas should be separated from ‘boundary’
> layers.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20211008/443a33f5/attachment.htm>