On May 10, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Mike Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry if I misrepresented your viewpoint.
Not a problem. Sorry if I sounded harsh while doing so. Just a minor
disagreement that we seem to have ironed out.
> "but I can't cut it down and start a campfire" - Are you excluding the
> gathering of fallen branches for firewood from the definition of forestry?
> That might be helpful: forestry = any place where, with the necessary
> permits, one may cut down a tree for the some economic use (i.e. not just to
> get rid of the tree). I still think it is broad, but it excludes the case
> where someone is just picking a few sticks off the ground to make a campfire.
The number of double negatives (can’t, excluding..from the definition, not just
to get rid of, excludes the case…) in here make me go, “Ummmmmmm.”
I strongly believe (and have asserted here many times) that because my national
forests allow me to collect downed wood and start a campfire (not always, but
enough of the time that I consider this a generally true fact in our national
forests) that “gathering of fallen branches for firewood” meets the definition
of “forestry.” Very, very small scale (individual human being!) forestry,
though forestry nonetheless. Importantly, I (and others) feel strongly that
OSM should support this with clear rendering, so it can be seen where it is
possible to do this. As the song goes: “This land is your land, this land is
my land, from the redwood forests…”.
> > We really have a number of different facts we are attempting to represent:
> > * What is on the ground (i.e. landcover). Currently this is tagged
> > natural=wood, but we could change to landcover=trees, or whatever we agree
> > on.
>
> Yes, I agree, but a fair bit more evolution, description and full-fleshing
> out of semantics (and very likely, real rendering) must be established for
> the landcover tag before we get nothing but utter confusion using it.
> Fleshing out is good, but I think the community is close.
Well, “closer,” yes. Close, I respectfully disagree. We need a
super-terrificly written (very clear) wiki page, we really ought to have at
least a plan for how this will be rendered in mapnik (if not outright rendering
already beginning) and we might have some serious biologists and/or botanists
and/or forestry folks make thoughtful contributions to a highly-developed
tagging scheme. I don’t believe we are there yet.
> landcover=trees means anywhere there are standing plants which are classified
> as trees. Fleshing out might include how dense the trees have to be, and
> whether standing deadwood counts as “trees"
Again: GOOD! This is awesome discussion, and I want to declare my ridiculous
enthusiasm for this project and how I see it continually progressing.
SteveA
California
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
