Re: [Tagging] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names
It really just happened. species, genus and taxon as tags came into existence at similar times. It may well be that my use of taxon was inspired by your own initiative on Flickr. Currently the position is very simple: - species and genus are preferred tags for taxon:species and taxon:genus - species and taxon are often, but by no means always, tag synonyms. There is little harm in duplicating keys for taxon species, and in practice genus is nearly always useful (if valid) with either tag. This is because parsing the range of potential values in taxon or species can be a real pain. The tree import in Vienna shows very well how these tags can work together, when a tree is a known cultivar. The tagging uses something like: genus=Populusspecies=Populus nigrataxon=Populus nigra 'Italica'taxon:cultivar='Italica' There were objections to using taxon on the basis that people wouldn't know what it meant: my feeling is that if you are confidently identifying trees to species then it is likely that you do! Of course there are lots of rubbish values in both sets of tags (check out Bologna), and funny problems exist with names for certain species such as London Plane, where the accepted name in the UK may be different from other European countries. It may also be useful to have some sort of convention for species:iso2cd and genus:iso2cd along the lines of Pedunculate Oak for the case where the vernacular name corresponds to the taxon, and oak where the vernacular name is more generic. Jerry Clough From: Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, 27 April 2015, 16:44 Subject: [Tagging] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names The wiki page for Tag:natural=tree: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree includes: taxon=* and: species=* genus=* The latter pair is a subset of the former; and thus redundant. How should this be resolved? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: What can species= and genus= do, that taxon= cannot? If all you know is the species, you can feel comfortable tagging the species. Tagging the taxon may not feel right, or may be too intimidating. Same for common names. You might know it's an Oak, but not realize it's a Live Oak, and furthermore not realize that live oak may be one of several species. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names
I had a look at the page for natural=tree and there is no example using taxon. For me that resulted in the use of species when known. Until yesterday I didn't even know how taxon could be used and it is confusing that it can look the same as genus or species. OTOH I do understand that using 3 keys like this makes pulling data out of the database a lot harder than it ought to be. Jo 2015-04-28 12:00 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: Am 28.04.2015 um 11:29 schrieb Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: Again; why do we need species=* and genus=* on that basis? you're right that we don't need them, the less specific key taxon covers all kind of taxons, still people seem to prefer species and genus (together 600K uses) before taxon (139K used). cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names
On 28 April 2015 at 07:16, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: What can species= and genus= do, that taxon= cannot? If all you know is the species, you can feel comfortable tagging the species. That doesn't answer my question. If al an editor knows is the species, then taxon=[species] is fine. Tagging the taxon may not feel right, or may be too intimidating. That's very vague, and I suspect not supportable with evidence. Does anyone have any? Same for common names. You might know it's an Oak, but not realize it's a Live Oak, Then taxon=Quercus (or even taxon=Oak) will suffice. and furthermore not realize that live oak may be one of several species. Again; why do we need species=* and genus=* on that basis? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names
Am 28.04.2015 um 11:29 schrieb Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: Again; why do we need species=* and genus=* on that basis? you're right that we don't need them, the less specific key taxon covers all kind of taxons, still people seem to prefer species and genus (together 600K uses) before taxon (139K used). cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names
On 27 April 2015 at 17:42, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: be as explicit as you can, live and let live. E.g. if you know and tag the species you can omit the rest of the taxonomy tags, if you don't know it, a genus will be very welcome because it is much more information than nothing... IMHO there is nothing to resolve, this was designed on purpose like this. There is redundancy, which is likely to be confusing to mappers and create unnecessary problems for data reusers. What is the difference between: taxon=Quercus_robur and species=Quercus_robur ? or between: taxon=Quercus and genus=Quercus ? Why would we ever need: taxon=Quercus_robur and genus=Quercus ? What can species= and genus= do, that taxon= cannot? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names
The wiki page for Tag:natural=tree: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree includes: taxon=* and: species=* genus=* The latter pair is a subset of the former; and thus redundant. How should this be resolved? -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names
2015-04-27 17:44 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: The latter pair is a subset of the former; and thus redundant. How should this be resolved? be as explicit as you can, live and let live. E.g. if you know and tag the species you can omit the rest of the taxonomy tags, if you don't know it, a genus will be very welcome because it is much more information than nothing... IMHO there is nothing to resolve, this was designed on purpose like this. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names
On 27/04/15 16:44, Andy Mabbett wrote: The wiki page for Tag:natural=tree: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree includes: taxon=* and: species=* genus=* The latter pair is a subset of the former; and thus redundant. How should this be resolved? It's often possible to work out the genus but not the exact species. Many trees that people would describe as horse chestnut are really cross species. Having genus and species separate is helpful. Taxon lets you describe a tree very fully, but only if you know all of the detail. I'd leave all three tags available (well they are available regardless of what the wiki says anyway :-) ) -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
