On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 1:32 PM, OSM Volunteer stevea < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > No problem, glad we have it worked out. > > > 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…”. > Ok, you are talking about gathering of fallen branches, not just cutting of standing trees. In which case, why is my backyard, from which I gather fallen branches for firewood, any different from a landuse perspective, than a National Forest? What about a private campground, open to the paying public, where they allow the gathering of fallen branches for firewood? I don't understand how ownership should change how landuse is classified. > > > > 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. > I agree there is room for improvement. BTW, this publication may be useful: http://www.pbcgis.com/data_basics/anderson.pdf > > Again: GOOD! This is awesome discussion, and I want to declare my > ridiculous enthusiasm for this project and how I see it continually > progressing. > Yes! We are making progress! Mike
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
