Talk:Proposed features/Tag:natural=fungus

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Totally inappropriate to map such things on OSM: too small, too many, too ephemeral, not readily verifiable by other mappers, GPS resolution not adequate. (as SK53 said on the natural=flowers page). --Polarbear w (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This is worth mapping

I think people commonly mistake fungus for mushroom - and the original proposal did the same mistake. No, they are not small insignificant and short lived. Instead they are some of the biggest, heaviest and oldest organism living on earth:

It would be a joke not to map these if we map trees! RicoZ (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@RicoZ, they are just too ephemeral. Whereas street trees may last 100 years or so (often longer than the buildings), a fungal fruiting body will last days. Whereas we know how many trees there are in a country like GB (around 80 million Ash trees) and in most cities (typically low 10,000s for a city of around 500k), the number of ephemeral fungal fruiting bodies will be much higher. Also there are perfectly good applications -; iNaturalist, iRecord - for recording fungi, all of which use OSM as a base layer. Lastly, I am interested in so-called microfungi which often grow on particular leaves of particular plants. Hope you're not adovating mapping those. SK53 (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
This is not about every single mushroom you will find in the forest or elsewhere but about the fungus that grows underground and may grow many thousands of years old. There are only a few of them that have been discovered and documented like but those are certainly more long lasting and bigger than most of the trees.
Thanks for mentioning the microfungi, I would not micro-map them but wondering if the area and pattern of their prevalence should be mapped? I am thinking about vegetation levels so might somehow include the idea of "parasitic" vegetation into my thoughts. RicoZ (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

How to map

How could a mapper identify such an area for mapping, or how can a mapper verify that an already mapped area is indeed covered by such a fungus? --Lyx (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Good question. We have to rely on the scientists publishing their data ( and so far they published gps tables of points where a particular individual has been found ( There is also a sketch of a map inside the paper. Not sure if the current proposal to map them as area is flexible enough if all we have is a collection of known points. It might be possible to extrapolate an area from the points - we are not mapping them in 3D anyway so a good approximation may be sufficient? Or should we introduce collections of points? RicoZ (talk) 21:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
After some thought I would definitely prefer to do the abstraction/generalization and map an approximate area instead of a collection of "precisely known" points. The generalization is much more generally useful, the error margin should be fairly small and it is possible the margins will be somewhat changing over time. RicoZ (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)