[OSM-talk-be] Land-use mapping with OSM in Belgium

[joost schouppe]

*  About forests, I tend to agree with the natural=wood not really existing
in Belgium. The only exception I know of is a bit of the Zoniënwoud
(Kersselaerplein) that has had "zero management" for 34 years now.
But most natural=wood I've seen is wrong.

Just recently, I changed the Bois de La Houssiere (
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=14/50.6189/4.1948) from wood to forest.
It's a bit of a special case: it's a Natura 2000 protected area, but it is
also actively used as a forestry area.

I agree with the comments above that landuse=forest for any kind of group
of trees is annoying too.

- In cases where you have residential areas in a forest, or wooded areas in
gardens, maybe we should really encourage the use of the landcover tag?
- In cases where forests are managed, but as some kind of nature reserve or
natural area, maybe we could use a subtag to indicate the management style?
That would allow to differentiate between real forestry and forests with
nature-friendly management. You could use one of the many nature reserve
tags of course, but I'm not sure all naturally managed forests are
protected and the Bois de la Houssiere shows the opposite also exists.


* On a more detailed note: I had never heard of the taxon tag, I've only
used species before. I'm completely confused now :)
And are the values REALLY comma separated, not " ; " seperated?

* About OSM.be: we're still thinking about what exactly we want to use the
Projects for - the fact we don't really know was shown quite clearly by
Marc's latest article.

I think we could have an OSM.be project on "Harmonizing tagging in
OpenStreetMap". It would first explain really short how tagging works, and
why it can be something problematic. Then it could define goals, one of
which could be "harmonizing tagging practices about landuse mapping in
Belgium". Next it could define a series of sub-projects, like "discussing
and creating consensus about best practices" (with links to this discussion
and Julien's article). Another one could be setting up a Maproulette task
to check certain suspicious cases (like the hundreds of natural=grassland
around the Bois de la Houssiere). Lastly, it should contain an invitation
and specific pointers on how to participate in the project.

2017-04-26 5:16 GMT+02:00 Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com>:

> Julien, and others,
>
> thanks a lot for this text. I still have to go through all the
> details, but here are already some remarks.
>
> - Me too, would love to see landuse=forest be used in a more strict
> way, only for areas where timber is really used for commercial
> purposes. It's even possible that at certain periods there are no
> trees in such areas. For the rest I would love that landcover=trees
> would be more accepted and rendered.
> One of the reasons is that landuse=forest clashes with e.g.
> landuse=residential in large private parks.  But I fear too any people
> stick to their "managed" definition and just want to see trees on the
> default map.
>
> - Some mapper split a landuse=farmyard and use landuse=residential
> around the farm itself. I do not do this. What do you think about this
> ?
>
> - During one of my recent walks I found some areas like
> https://xian.smugmug.com/OSM/OSM-2017/2017-04-02-Postel-AK/i-5D62hDt
> some were larger than what you see on this picture, I think I would
> use natural=grassland on those. Other suggestions ?   It was hard to
> take a better picture
>
> - Often it is better to use natural=tree_row instead of
> landuse=forest/natural=wood IMHO.
>
> regards
>
> m
>
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Julien Minet <juminet at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > Following some discussions about landuse=farmland|meadow some times ago
> in
> > this list, I've written an article here
> > (http://www.nobohan.be/2017/04/20/landuse-osm-belgium/) about land-use
> > mapping in Belgium: what could be the best practices adapted to the
> Belgian
> > landscape. Of course, there's matter for discussions about that topic ;-)
> >
> > I think this text could be used to make a page on
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/,
> since
> > it discuss what are the local conventions for land-use mapping in
> Belgium.
> >
> > Do you also want to put this text on osm.be, similarly to the Marc Gemis
> > articles? Maybe a better place for discussions...
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Julien
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-be mailing list
> > Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-be mailing list
> Talk-be at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
>



-- 
Joost Schouppe
OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> |
Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn
<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup
<http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-be/attachments/20170426/116114c1/attachment.htm>