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

[Tom Crocker]

Hi James

On Fri, 3 Sept 2021 at 17:30, James Derrick <lists at jamesderrick.org> wrote:

> Hi Tom,
>
> On 02/09/2021 22:19, Tom Crocker wrote:
>
> So, specifically in Kielder, I would change the existing landuse=forest
> areas to natural=wood. Add named areas of forest with landuse=forest but
> also add cutlines between the natural=wood areas when there's a narrow,
> relatively consistent gap - there's quite a lot of these in Kielder.
>
> After older debates, the tagging practice has been Approach 3 as in
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Forest
>
> This distinguishes natural=wood from landuse=forest in a similar way to
> wild animals and cattle (analogy mugged from IT sysadmin VMs).
>

Fair enough. I'm sure a lot of thought has gone into the current practice
in Kielder. I suggested that way because:
- I understand most data consumers treat wood and forest as identical given
the confusion,
- I believe it's usually preferred to not overlay one landuse on another,
and
- landuse=forestry isn't recognised by many, so following this approach
Wark Forest etc would be unlikely to found in a search.
but however it's done will be misunderstood by most given the current state
of play.

Add areas of grass, heath, wetland, etc elsewhere (James, I don't know if
> you're aware of JOSM's balloon tool which makes this pretty easy?).
>
> That process was started, but there's a lot of Kielder...
>
> A JOSM balloon tool is news to me, but after some poking around, do you
> mean the plug-in ShrinkWrap perhaps?
>
>     https://github.com/ubipo/shrinkwrap
>
> Ooh! Shiny! Thanks! :-)
>
> Much of Kielder isn't bounded so might need some tweaks, but Shinkwrap
> looks exceptionally useful for general landcover - add boundary barrier=*,
> then click to generate an internal landuse=* without having to manually
> trace the area with Follow.
>
> Signing off now to try a new toy...
>
I hope you're enjoying it. I probably made it sound easier than it is -
given the size of Kielder it's still obviously going to take an awful long
time! What I do when there's a change of landcover without associated
boundary (others undoubtedly have greater experience), is add a small area
of that to block up the end, then use the Balloon tool from the shrinkwrap
plugin to fill the rest and then merge the two areas.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edward Bainton wrote:

> I could see the fine distinction between landuse=forestry and
> landuse=forest getting lost on many of those novices, besides the
> 2-character difference.
>
> Might landuse=managed_forestry, or even better,
> landuse=managed_forestry_area make the distinction more explict?
>

Hi Ed. I think you make a fair point, and it was one of the many objections
to boundary=forestry
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations
Maybe it would be helpful to make this suggestion on the landuse=forestry
talk page while there aren't many uses of the tag.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dforestry


Tom
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20210904/51cea067/attachment.htm>