Hi all, sorry I change the idea from just landcover to sat_landcover because I saw it as reasonable for a draft landcover in an area for which I don’t know exactly if what I’m mapping is a meadow or a cultivated land or something similar, but I understand in which of the categories it fall, as we explain into the wiki page.
So if you think that it's better to return back to just landcover for me it’s fine. We just want to point the problem and the importance of a theme like deforestation in a big forest and his effect on climate change. But if there are no data about how is possible to do that? So from this reason, we have this proposal after reading pages of the wiki trying to find the best solution to tag these elements. We don’t want to create anything that can be forgotten after our event instead, we think that this can be an important issue that can be taken care of part of OSM community. Any help is welcome and please try to remain focus on the starting point and not diverge like in the previous thread. Sorry we care very much on this project and we believe in the his importance. Thanks Tod for this point this is what we are exactly talking about. Best, Lorenzo Il giorno 14 mar 2019, alle ore 22:29, Tod Fitch <t...@fitchdesign.com<mailto:t...@fitchdesign.com>> ha scritto: On Mar 14, 2019, at 2:04 PM, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com<mailto:kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 4:51 PM marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com<mailto:marc_marc_...@hotmail.com>> wrote: no:landcover=trees ? or, as the previous landcover/imagery show tress, was:landcover=trees However you want to spell it. I just saw two replies to Lorenzo that were suggesting that his source data were unmappable because they didn't support a sufficiently detailed taxonomy of landcover, and I wanted to point out that "no trees here" is useful information that should be distinguished from "we haven't yet looked to see if there are trees here." "was:landcover=trees" is not something that I favour, because there's also the useful combination, "no trees in the old imagery, and no trees in the current imagery either", still without information about whether one is looking at grass, scrub, heath, meadow, wetland or farmland, which can't always be distinguished in orthoimages. I suppose that the "no:landcover=trees" COULD work, but I don't see no:*=* in wide use, and suspect that it will be controversial. Why not landcover=vegetation as an equivalent to highway=road? It would indicate that some type of plant matter is growing on it but exactly what is not yet known. Once more information (field survey? low level aerial survey/photos?) is available then a more specific landcover could be applied. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
