[Talk-GB] Large swaths of "heath" in Wales?

[Brian Prangle]

Marco  thanks for all your efforts on this issue.

I've continued to edit and comment dubious landuses (and reverse some
cliffs to get left on the top) based on my knowledge of the hills in
Snowdonia.and confirmation from bing. In my opinion, there's definitely a
need for a community project over a Q to sort all this out. In the meantime
can I encourage everyone to review areas they know well, having walked in
the area; or just review against aerial imagery?

I like Marco's idea of  leaving the mountain areas as a negative  white
space and surrounding them with farmland - although that's an even bigger
task.

Is there an accepted scientific classification of land cover that we could
use?

 Some of the areas I'm proposing to tag as landuse=managed_grouse_moor
where you can see in aerial imagery (and indeed walk over) the long strips
burnt,or these days increasingly mown,  by land managers in order to
encourage new  vegetation growth for the grouse to breed in and feed on.

Regards

Brian

On 13 February 2017 at 18:19, Marco Boeringa <marco at boeringa.demon.nl>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Since there was no more real discussion, I have decided to also revert the
> other two changesets. This means all the heath should re-appear on the map
> as it used to be before, except for the single edit by Brian based on his
> local knowledge of Snowdonia.
>
> I think the suggestion by one of the list members (was it also Brian?) to
> set up some quarterly project to manually review some of the most obvious
> potential problematic areas, like Snowdonia, is probably the way to go now.
>
> If this was done, based on my own review of the data up to now, I would
> suggest to deal with the following issues:
>
> 1) - Fix JOSM reported geometric issues, like overlaps between areas,
> duplicate nodes and possibly intersections.
>
> 2) - Merge areas cut up in arbitrary small sections into a single closed
> way or multipolygon. This is especially important for point 4), adding
> geographic names. With JOSM, the size should probably not be an issue,
> since the digitization itself is quite coarse of most areas, so the total
> number of nodes to deal with is limited.
>
> 3) - Create multipolygons where appropriate, e.g. when there are other
> internal landuses or natural features. While I regularly hear people say
> "that is a problem of the renderers", I can assure you, not creating
> multipolygons and leaving the renderer to guess what needs to go on top, is
> really a genuine issue. Having created a renderer myself, I now how though
> this is, and it really helps to have multipolygons in appropriate
> situations with internal ways.
>
> 4) - Add some useful toponyms / names. I noticed that by far the majority
> of the areas don't carry a name yet, while I presume many true heath areas
> do have a name in reality.
>
> But I will leave this to all you now to decide.
>
> Marco
>
>
> ---
> Dit e-mailbericht is gecontroleerd op virussen met Avast antivirussoftware.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20170213/4d7de1d8/attachment-0001.html>