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

Andy Allan gravitystorm at gmail.com
Wed Jul 22 16:37:50 BST 2009


On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM, Alice Kaerast<kaerast at qvox.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:48:17 +0100
> Andy Allan <gravitystorm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> So we have (at least) three orthogonal properties
>> a) Are there trees, swamp, mud or rocks on the ground (land cover)
>> b) Is the area used for forestry, recreation or military training
>> (land use) c) Is the area administered or designated or named as a
>> "National Forest" "State Park" "National Park" "World Heritage Site"
>> or some other such designation (administrative)
>>
>
> There is also another property which hasn't been considered - type of
> trees.  Evergreen vs. Deciduous might be nice to know.  Ordnance survey
> maps differentiate between coniferous and non-coniferous and has
> symbols for coppice and orchard.

Ah, that's just sub-typing of category A though - you can't have
deciduous rocks or coniferous mud, so "type of trees" is a subcategory
of "land cover is trees" rather than an independent (i.e. orthogonal)
property. Doesn't mean that it's not important though!

Cheers,
Andy




More information about the talk mailing list