[OSM-talk] Woods vs Forests
Tomas Straupis
tomasstraupis at gmail.com
Fri Oct 27 10:36:15 UTC 2017
> In; F1 there are the words "general landuse polygons"
>
> F2 there are the words "residential, commercial, industrial zones" that
> clearly imply land use.
>
> So your discussion is clearly about land use? Fine - that is ok.
No. It is about virtual layers, calculated from OSM data for
cartographic, statistical or maybe some other use cases.
> I have an area that is used for recreation - picnics, walks, etc. It is a
> designated "National Park".
> So human land use is 'recreation'. There are native animals in there .. but
> the plan of management is primarily for 'recreation' and has been for many
> decades.
My understanding is that all parks (national/regional and local
ones) are on a "higher" level "different GIS layer". That is on the
ground you still have a forest, water, meadow, rock, whatever. And
then on TOP of that you have an area of a "park". If you're interested
in parks - you render them on top of forest, meadow etc. objects. But
if you're not interested in parks you skip park objects and should
still get a good result with forests, meadows etc.
Also if you're calculating how much forests there is in a region,
you want forests. It is not important if that forest is IN the park,
or not. You can simply ignore park objects.
Or in other words, park is something I must KNOW. It is not
something I can see from say the airplane.
--
Tomas
More information about the talk
mailing list