[NUUG kart] Omstrukturering av skog i Marka
Stefan Rothe
stefan at hess-rothe.net
Mon Jan 7 19:15:09 CET 2013
Jeg deltar denne diskusjon på Engelsk fordi min Norsk er ikke så bra :-)
This diskussion is as old as OSM. We had it in Germany, and we had it in
Norway as well.
In fact, it just depends of map-users point-of-view, or map-users
interest. A biologist, an environmentalist, a landowner, a tourist or
hiker/skier, a pilot, a hunter, they all will have a different approach
to the classification of wood ./. forest. (I am a geologist)
OSM can, through its standard tags, only deliver a "Base Map", suitable
for a general purpose. Everything beyond this needs to be tagged either
with special tags within OSM, or through independant, linked databases
for special purposes.
Now, what in common sense would be a "Forest" in Norway, what would be
"Wood"? As a foreigner I am probably not the most competent person to
argue about the wording, but I believe that the view of a "casual
environmentally caretaking person" e.g. a nature-friendly hiker matches
most peoples' general idea. What does this mean in practice, for Norway?
Landuse = Forest: This is all forest which is planted (or replanted) in
rows, cut down and reforested as a whole area (or subsquares), the trees
being of equal age and not much undergrowth to see. From what I have
seen so far (have been travelling a lot through Norway) this would
probably apply to 20 % of all tree areas.
Natural = Wood: All not so intensely treated tree areas, e.g. only part
of the trees cut out every few years, existing undergrowth, generally
most uneven/rocky terrain areas which have not been paved for
agricultural forestery, and so forth. Probably the other 80 %. Most of
Nordmarka would probably fall into this category.
Categories like "virgin forest" are not really suitable in a general
map. Also, I doubt anybody without special knowledge could judge it. In
Europe, including Scandinavia, there is only *very few* untouched forest
left, which for the ordinary visitor of the map would be rather
identified through its protection status and name than through it's
shade of green.
I hope this helps a bit in the discussion. When I mapped forest in
Norway so far, I always used "Natural = Wood", to stress that I found a
forest with a wide variety of tree ages and species, which generally
looked "nice", in the common sense ;-).
Hils, Stefan
Am 07.01.2013 16:45, schrieb Einar Ryeng:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 04:27:19PM +0100, Guttorm Flatabø wrote:
>> 2013/1/7 Einar Ryeng <einarr at pvv.org>
>>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 03:30:07PM +0100, Vidar Gundersen wrote:
>>>> 2013/1/7 Steinar Hamre <steinarh at pvv.ntnu.no>:
>>>>
>>>>> Så selv om 90% av skogen i Oslomarka og andre kystnære områder har vært
>>>>> hogget en gang, betyr ikke det at den vil bli hogget igjen. (Skogen
>>>>> langs Ekebergåsen er plantet, men tenk dere ramaskrikene hvis noen
>>>>> skulle snauhogge, det er jo knapt åpnet for å utvide stier.)
>>>> Viktig poeng. Og interessant å vise i et kart?
>>> Jeg synes dette er lite interessant, spesielt å vise i et kart, men også å
>>> ha i databasen. For visning i kart er vel folk mest interessert i hvorvidt
>>> det er høye grønne ting der, ikke om de ble hugget en gang eller skal
>>> hugges en dag.
>>>
>> Eg forsto Steinar slik at dette var ein måte å identifisere kva som er
>> hogstskog. Poenget er vel å iallfall identifisere monokulturell skog / skog
>> for hogst på den eine sida, og urskog på den andre. Urskog (virgin?) må vel
>> identifiserast av biologar som har greie på det.
> Hva om vi standardiserer på én skog-tag, og legger alt det andre (skogen er
> drevet, skogen er fredet, trærne står på rekke, her er det bare stubber, ...)
> inn i ekstra-tagger?
>
More information about the kart
mailing list