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

Thu Apr 27 08:03:40 UTC 2017

Hi Julien,

* How would you feel about building a proposal about
forest_management_style=* ? To my great surprise, I noticed I kind of like
mingling in the endless discussions at the tagging mailing list. So I would
be willing to help out.

* Quantitative analysis of landuse mapping in Belgium: I did that. The idea
was to generate a useful dataset of landuse at the level of the statistical
sectors. So I made a classification of several layers (residential, nature,
water, transport infrastructure). Then I did some GIS processing: to create
polygons out of roads and POIs. Then I needed to choose in which layer to
count the landuse, for example sometimes there's a huge residential area
with everything just mapped on top of that. So then you need to decide if a
park in a residential area is a park or a residential area.
I can share method and result. We could set up a voice meeting on Riot (
https://riot.im/app/#/room/#osmbe:matrix.org) so others can join in case
they're interested.

* The end result should be a landuse convention, yes.

2017-04-27 9:51 GMT+02:00 Julien Minet <juminet at gmail.com>:

> Thanks for your reactions!
>
> * About the tag natural=wood, I also think it is over-represented in
> Belgium. Belgian forests are indeed not only managed for timber production
> but also hunting, tourism and nature conservation, but often in an
> integrated manner under the same areas (at least in theory!). Note that the
> Natura 2000 program does not preclude at all that timber wood is produced!
> See on this link how much forests in south of Wallonia are covered by
> Natura 2000: http://geoportail.wallonie.be/walonmap#SHARE=
> 4E2203C158780AB5E053D0AFA49D7D23.
> <http://geoportail.wallonie.be/walonmap#SHARE=4E2203C158780AB5E053D0AFA49D7D23>
>
> * I did not talk about the landcover tag in my article but it'd be worth
> talking more about it!
>
> * It would be interesting to quantitavely analyse the ways landuse is
> mapped in Belgium. I'm thinking about it. Any ideas on how, what kind of
> analysis are welcome...
>
> * Summarizing this discussion in osm.be could be nice. But why not also
> create a "landuse convention" page on the OSM wiki
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions>?
>
>
> Julien
>
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:26 AM, joost schouppe <joost.schouppe at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> *  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/>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20170427/8d20ba66/attachment.htm>