tagging burnt areas

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

tagging burnt areas

Warin
Hi,

A German mapper in Carbargo has used landuse=brownfield to map burnt areas.


One such area is a recreation ground... so it would be burnt grass.


Is it a good idea to map such things?

It could be said this is 'temporary' so not something OSM should map.


If so, how should it be tagged?

It is not really a landuse, nor a landcover.

Possibly a new key as a property key, say, burnt=yes?




_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tagging burnt areas

Andrew Harvey-3
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=brownfield is absolutely not correct, have you reverted? Which changesets?

They are still wood even if burnt so natural=wood should apply.

I have thought about if we should map burnt areas, it's tricky because while it is surveyable, it changes quickly and the point at when it changes to no longer burnt is subjective. For those reasons I do think it's better to store this in another database not OSM. There you can capture the burn date and degree of the burn.

If you use burt=yes, it means you need to start cutting up your natural=wood polygons, which I don't think it's worth it.

On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 08:40, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

A German mapper in Carbargo has used landuse=brownfield to map burnt areas.


One such area is a recreation ground... so it would be burnt grass.


Is it a good idea to map such things?

It could be said this is 'temporary' so not something OSM should map.


If so, how should it be tagged?

It is not really a landuse, nor a landcover.

Possibly a new key as a property key, say, burnt=yes?




_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tagging burnt areas

Andrew Davidson-3
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 7:51 PM Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have thought about if we should map burnt areas, it's tricky because while it is surveyable, it changes quickly and the point at when it changes to no longer burnt is subjective. For those reasons I do think it's better to store this in another database not OSM. There you can capture the burn date and degree of the burn.


 This was what I was thinking. You'd have to somehow tag when an area was burnt and to what degree it was burnt. Not really something I'd expect to see in OSM.

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tagging burnt areas

Ewen Hill
I would only be replacing any known houses and outbuildings with buildling=ruins. There are a number of old bridges that fall probably under this category along railtrails etc.  however the bush and grasslands will regrow ... unless it happens to reburn again this season.

  In Victoria over 1000 buildings have been damaged or destroyed however some areas are yet to be checked. This will change the fabric of some Victorian towns. The Clifton Hill school with around 15 children may never be rebuilt with children now commuting to Bairnsdale.

   All the other .infrastructure will probably return although there is 5,500km of roads to be cleared of dangerous trees and some crews are doing only 3km per day due to the dangerous state some trees are in. 

  I would be looking at reverting any change-sets that have brownfield/burnt other than the building=ruins

Ewen
   



On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 21:07, Andrew Davidson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 7:51 PM Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have thought about if we should map burnt areas, it's tricky because while it is surveyable, it changes quickly and the point at when it changes to no longer burnt is subjective. For those reasons I do think it's better to store this in another database not OSM. There you can capture the burn date and degree of the burn.


 This was what I was thinking. You'd have to somehow tag when an area was burnt and to what degree it was burnt. Not really something I'd expect to see in OSM.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


--
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tagging burnt areas

Warin
On 27/1/20 11:13 pm, Ewen Hill wrote:

I would only be replacing any known houses and outbuildings with buildling=ruins. There are a number of old bridges that fall probably under this category along railtrails etc.


I don't think much of the tag building=ruins. A church in ruins is still recognizable as an exchurch.

Much rather use the life cycle tagging, so building=church becomes ruined:building=church.


however the bush and grasslands will regrow ... unless it happens to reburn again this season.

  In Victoria over 1000 buildings have been damaged or destroyed however some areas are yet to be checked. This will change the fabric of some Victorian towns. The Clifton Hill school with around 15 children may never be rebuilt with children now commuting to Bairnsdale.

   All the other .infrastructure will probably return although there is 5,500km of roads to be cleared of dangerous trees and some crews are doing only 3km per day due to the dangerous state some trees are in. 

  I would be looking at reverting any change-sets that have brownfield/burnt other than the building=ruins

Ewen
   



On Mon, 27 Jan 2020 at 21:07, Andrew Davidson <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 7:51 PM Andrew Harvey <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have thought about if we should map burnt areas, it's tricky because while it is surveyable, it changes quickly and the point at when it changes to no longer burnt is subjective. For those reasons I do think it's better to store this in another database not OSM. There you can capture the burn date and degree of the burn.


 This was what I was thinking. You'd have to somehow tag when an area was burnt and to what degree it was burnt. Not really something I'd expect to see in OSM.
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


--
Warm Regards

Ewen Hill
Internet Development Australia

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tagging burnt areas

adam steer
I’d  personally avoid tagging areas as burnt - they’re temporary and as per advice from Andrew maybe should be left tagged as their long term state.

Looking around where I am (Benambra and north) there are already a lot of overlapping/duplicated/whats this for polygons relating to land cover… it’d be great to avoid adding more.

I guess if people want to add burned areas, my only suggestion is that whoever does so takes it upon themselves to return and update things later…

Regards,

Adam


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tagging burnt areas

Nathanael Coyne
It'd be like trying to tag plots in landuse=forest as felled or mature. While it'd be interesting it would quickly become unreliable and reduce the quality of data.

So while I would love to have burnt areas mapped in OSM I just think it's not worth trying.

Nathanael Coyne


On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 09:44, adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:
I’d  personally avoid tagging areas as burnt - they’re temporary and as per advice from Andrew maybe should be left tagged as their long term state.

Looking around where I am (Benambra and north) there are already a lot of overlapping/duplicated/whats this for polygons relating to land cover… it’d be great to avoid adding more.

I guess if people want to add burned areas, my only suggestion is that whoever does so takes it upon themselves to return and update things later…

Regards,

Adam

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: tagging burnt areas

Phil Wyatt

I agree – plenty of other services doing this much better – suspect it would only clutter up OSM and be neglected pretty quickly

 

arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?url=https://services9.arcgis.com/ZFlIzBMHgtgl0EYj/ArcGIS/rest/services/NSW_Bushfire_Burnt_Areas_2019_and_2020/FeatureServer/0&source=sd

 

 

Cheers - Phil

From: Nathanael Coyne <[hidden email]>
Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2020 9:56 AM
To: adam steer <[hidden email]>
Cc: OSM Australian Talk List <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [talk-au] tagging burnt areas

 

It'd be like trying to tag plots in landuse=forest as felled or mature. While it'd be interesting it would quickly become unreliable and reduce the quality of data.

 

So while I would love to have burnt areas mapped in OSM I just think it's not worth trying.

 

Nathanael Coyne

 

 

On Tue, 28 Jan 2020 at 09:44, adam steer <[hidden email]> wrote:

I’d  personally avoid tagging areas as burnt - they’re temporary and as per advice from Andrew maybe should be left tagged as their long term state.

 

Looking around where I am (Benambra and north) there are already a lot of overlapping/duplicated/whats this for polygons relating to land cover… it’d be great to avoid adding more.

 

I guess if people want to add burned areas, my only suggestion is that whoever does so takes it upon themselves to return and update things later…

 

Regards,

 

Adam

 

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au