[Talk-GB] Mapping of Kielder Forest(s)

[Russ Garrett]

We clearly don't have a consensus here, so I will concede defeat. I've
reverted all my changesets which have touched Kielder forest.

Unfortunately I don't think there is a workable, maintainable way of
tagging the names of these forests at the moment.

Russ

On Thu, 2 Sept 2021 at 13:47, James Derrick <lists at jamesderrick.org> wrote:
>
> Hi again Russ,
>
> On 30/08/2021 19:59, Russ Garrett wrote:
>  > First off I would like to emphasise that I am not suggesting the
>  > removal of any detail here.
>  >
>  > I am suggesting that small gaps in the forest should not be
>  > represented by gaps in the forest polygons, but should be replaced
>  > with man_made=cutline (and/or a highway tag), which would reduce the
>  > number of individual landuse polygons. Larger gaps (such as the old
>  > farmsteads, etc) should certainly be preserved, potentially as holes
>  > in a multipolygon.
>
> It may be me, but these two statements seem to be incompatible.
>
> In several areas I have taken the time to (start to) micro-map
> individual stands of trees with a single area. As cutlines/ firebreaks/
> haul roads are seldom linear features (river ravines, farmsteads,
> bothys, stone walls, shedding rings, gullys, etc), this is additional
> information with real features useful for navigation - remember not all
> maps are consumed on a GPSr.
>
>
> Rejoining these areas into one larger area and adding linear ways to
> represent (a few of) the gaps in trees in my mind absolutely is removing
> detail.
>
> I'd all it **macro-mapping**, at the risk of creating a hashtag.
>
>
> In areas where the mappping complexity is low, an outer area
> landuse=forest plus ways man_made=cutline makes a lot of sense - it
> gives a good balance of effort / useful detail.
>
> This isn't the case in Kielder, however. A lot of detail was imported in
> the past from other sources with individual stands of trees, and broken
> into small areas / import viewport clipping fixed later.
>
> As a simple example of imported data showing pre-existing areas:
>         G3YAC imported from OS_Opendata_Natural_Line
>         https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/131625930/history
>
> Would you join these relatively rectilinear areas and add cutlines?
>         https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/131625842/history
>         https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/131625810/history
>         https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/131625930/history
>
> I was about to reference a more complex case but...
>
>
>  > I'm not suggesting that the entire area should be tagged as "Kielder
>  > Forest".
>
> Sadly, after looking around Kielder observatory, I see you've already
> started merging areas and removing detail:
>         https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/383346121/history
>         https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/110350625
>
> A single 50km2 (roughly 6km x 4km) multi-poloygon is a poor replacement
> for the previous detail, and I ask you to stop **macro-mapping**.
>
>
> James
> --
> James Derrick
>      lists at jamesderrick.org, Cramlington, England
>      I wouldn't be a volunteer if you paid me...
>      https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/James%20Derrick



-- 
Russ Garrett
russ at garrett.co.uk