[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