[OSM-talk] Do we care if its forest or wood? Natural world mapping ...

[Greg Troxel]

Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> writes:

> 2009/7/21 Milo van der Linden <milo at opengeo.nl>:
>> May I suggest looking at what people at the CORINE landcover dataset
>> have defined?
>>
>> http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/COR0-landcover/at_download/file
>> they have a nomenclature describing a classification that is studied and
>> looks usable to me.
>
> of course it is studied. And it surely is usable in some way, but as
> far as I have seen (it's 163 pages) it doesn't deal at all with
> national parks and other protective areas (that's also logical, as
> this is not landcover but legal stuff).

I think the basic problem is that we have a bunch of tags for
non-orthogonal cases and a real mess of when things are used.  Physical
description (landcover) is one thing, and legal status/use is another.
The USGS topo maps used to have white for open and green for wooded,
plus swamp, etc. and these were landcover.

So, I think we need some tags that denote landcover, and some tags that
denote legal status.

so an area would have at most 1, preferably exactly one of:

landcover=trees
landcover=swamp
....


and at most 1 of

land_use=...



yes, land_use=forestry perhaps implies land_cover=trees, but in the case
of

  land_use=conservation

I would expect a variety of landcover tags within the administrative
boundary of the conservation area/park.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 193 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090721/06240fb8/attachment.pgp>