[talk-ph] Forest landcover
ronny at ager-wick.com
Thu Feb 4 06:44:21 UTC 2016
I'm not an authority on this, but I can't see a reason why not. The current
lines are unlikely to be accurate the way you describe them and matches what
I've seen elsewhere in the Philippines.
On 2016-02-02 18:17, David Groom wrote:
> Firstly let me introduce myself, I'm based in the UK. I've been involed with
> OSM pretty much from the start, (I attended the first ever mapping party), was
> responsible for a large part of the original worldwide coastline import,
> spent a lot of time fixing coastline errors, did most of the original mapping
> of Baghdad from Bing & Yahoo imagery, and have done of lot of other mappng
> from imagery worldwide, as well as mapping from my own GPX tracks here in th
> UK and wherever I vacation.
> I have recently started mapping parts of Leyte. Initially focusing on some of
> the smaller scale mapping ( tracing builings etc) .
> I then noticed that some areas of coastline on the west of the island needed
> updating from imagery since it had the typical "saw-tooth" effect resulting
> from imports of coastline data. so have been working on that. I'm not
> finished yet!
> Anyway, the purpose of my post to the list is to ask about landuse = forest
> areas. If you look at the central part of Leyte some large areas have been
> mapped and tagged for the forest, but :
> (1) these seem to have arbitary boundaries (long strainght lines where the
> areas simply have not been accuarely mapped to any natural feature)
> (2) The areas so far mapped with tree cover (either "natural = wood", or
> "landuse = forest" represent a smnall proportion of the actual forest cover on
> the island.
> My question is, is it OK if as I map other things I extend the tree cover
> areas . This may result in a large part of Leyte "turning green" on the map.
> David Groom
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
More information about the talk-ph