> "landcover = trees that is a tag for a wood where is not clear in which class > have to be considered the wood if natural or maintained by humans."
Almost all woodland in the world have been modified by humans, even in the Amazon basin. I would recommend checking the existing areas of tagged woodland in the area, and using either landuse=forest or natural=wood depending on the current use by local mappers. You should also ask the Colombian mappers about this project, especially if your group is from outside of the country. Try https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-co > "The landcover=artificial will a be a general (in the sense of the previous > point) to map an area that is covered by buildings (residential and > industrial area) and other man-made structures (like the quarry)" This is not useful for Openstreetmap. If your aerial imagery is good enough to distinguish woodland, you should also be able to clearly distinguish a quarry from a village or town or industrial area. I recommend using the established tags (eg landuse=quarry, landuse=residential, landuse=industrial) or just leaving the area untagged. > there are area without trees because they are cut and there is just land > without also grass or zone in the middle of the forest without any trees ... > I will put a photos on attach... area1 , area2 and area3 Area1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18uzLqVp1NbxZpZqhU9-Ydbc_K7i39Byl/view): It would be more helpful to provide a link to the location. This one is hard to identify without local knowledge or the ability to check the surrounding area or different imagery options Area 2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BztdQZjn35sso20-mZVAWpEHs8D-ITPH/view) This is a small lake with muddy water. Area 3 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kfRjnLH7lgozFKWmZIrqAu1TmX-P6kig/view) It would help to zoom in closer, but there is a building at the center and a rough road. Most of this is likely meadow, pasture or farmland, with some areas of natural=scrub at the edges, but it would certainly help to have local knowledge of the area to be sure. On 3/19/19, Lorenzo Stucchi <lorenzostucch...@outlook.it> wrote: > Hi all, > > Thanks for the reply and for the constructive comments, we don’t want to > vote something that no-one will accept, it's just a waste of time, for this > reason, we start before to talk with all of you. > > Remember that all the ideas are related to map in the Amazonian forest an > area where nothing is mapped and the map is empty. > > There are lots of question, so I try to answer most of them, sorry I lose > one. > > The tag landcover=tree is still existing so we don’t have to propose it so > we will propose 3 different tag landcover = cultivation - barren - > artificial , like for landcover = trees that is a tag for a wood where is > not clear in which class have to be considered the wood if natural or > maintained by humans. In such a way the other tag will be a higher level of > tag respect to the existing ones. This doesn’t mean that we will map in a > bad way or big area so with a low precision in the shape of the area, but we > are not sure (remaining on the example of the wood) if the wood is > maintained or not so we will use a tag in a more high level to don’t map > wrong. > > Landcover doesn’t refer to natural or not natural element but its a more > general concept, like we write in the wiki > page<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/PoliMappers/mapping_deforestation>: > Land Cover (LC) is a term that describes material that covers the Earth’s > surface. The description can range from very general (e.g. forest, > non-forest) to the very detailed one (i.e. Broad-leaved forest, Coniferous > forest, Mixed forest, etc). > So now our idea is to create this very general description of the covers but > this doesn’t meaning that the quality is bad. > > The landcover=artificial will a be a general (in the sense of the previous > point) to map an area that is covered by buildings (residential and > industrial area) and other man-made structures (like the quarry) this > definition is from the > nasa<https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/science_information.php?page=CeresSurfID#> > at the point 13. > > About the idea of the creation of the different tag like sat_landcover I > have changed it but the correct point was that the landcover is just one and > doesn’t depend on which way you are looking to it. > > For some area where new start to watching at doesn’t exist any tag, there > are area without trees because they are cut and there is just land without > also grass or zone in the middle of the forest without any trees and nothing > in some cases., I will put a photos on attach. (sorry I don’t known about > sending photos so I put the photo on drive here the photos > area1<https://drive.google.com/open?id=18uzLqVp1NbxZpZqhU9-Ydbc_K7i39Byl> , > area2<https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BztdQZjn35sso20-mZVAWpEHs8D-ITPH> > and > area3<https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kfRjnLH7lgozFKWmZIrqAu1TmX-P6kig> ) > > Best, > Lorenzo > > Il giorno 19 mar 2019, alle ore 07:53, Peter Elderson > <pelder...@gmail.com<mailto:pelder...@gmail.com>> ha scritto: > > > I like the project to map deforestation over time, and I think OSM can be > used. I also think OSM can profit from the data. However, as I have said > before, OSM mappers have a different viewpoint: mapping whats's there now, > as seen on the ground, as detailed as possible. And they have made a mess of > tagging, using landuse, natural, and other keys to tag what's on the ground > and what the land is used for, and landcover has been added but is not > rendered. > > I repeat, the best way is to use a different key for this purpose (landcover > as seen from above). You can then use an existing classification, no > compromise, with a clear meaning. > > You will have to create your own rendering to get it mapped. I'm told that > is not difficult, but you'll need some resources and expertise. > > You will have to store a copy of the OSM database (or an extract) after each > mapping stint, to feed a history-flow rendering tool. There are existing GIS > tools for that, I have given one example and someone else gave an OSM-based > one. > > The actual data in the current OSM map may help mappers to enter, update or > verify the mapping of landcover in the regular OSM tags. If I were you, I > would leave that up to them. I for one would be very interested to compare > your data against the current landcover mapping of The Netherlands. For > deforestation, sure, but more so for urbanization. > > If you push different use of current tags, mappers will turn against it, > revert your changes, and your project will fail. > > Fr gr Peter Elderson > > ______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org<mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ > 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
