[talk-ph] Forest landcover

Leonard Soriano banito_pinoy at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 4 23:37:44 UTC 2016


Hi, 

I think it is OK to extend the tree cover areas if the basis of mapping is the present forest land cover. The mapped areas would be actually close to what is existing on the ground.

On a related note. I just observed that some mapped ares of existing land use = forest, were based on elevation data rather than the actual extent of the forest cover.  Although there is a relationship between the type of vegetation that can be present in a given elevation range, I think it is not always automatic that the area of the forest cover boundary would follow the line boundary of a specific elevation.  

--bunny


    On Thursday, 4 February 2016, 19:33, Eugene Alvin Villar <seav80 at gmail.com> wrote:
 

 I agree. I actually admire the detailed landcover areas found in many
places in Europe in OSM and I can't see how such a level of detail
would be problematic here in the Philippines.

As for the saw-tooth coastlines, I'm actually surprised they still
exist to a large degree since we did a mini-project back in 2010 to
improve those coastlines:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Philippines/Coastline_corrections

~Eugene

On 2/4/16, Ronny Ager-Wick <ronny at ager-wick.com> wrote:
> 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.
> Ronny.
>
> On 2016-02-02 18:17, David Groom wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> David Groom
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk-ph mailing list
>> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk-ph mailing list
> talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph
>

_______________________________________________
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ph/attachments/20160204/3e50daae/attachment.html>


More information about the talk-ph mailing list