[Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved <-> leafed)
Hey Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling for broad_leafed is. Numbers are almost even in the data. Probably, a nice task for a bot. On the other hand, I wonder if it is useful to use type=* and not tree_type=* or tree:type=* as type is the key for relations and it is not that good to use different meanings of one key. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved <-> leafed)
Am 07.07.2013 18:33, schrieb fly: > Hey > > Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling for > broad_leafed is. Numbers are almost even in the data. Probably, a nice > task for a bot. Sorry, numbers are towards "leaved". > On the other hand, I wonder if it is useful to use type=* and not > tree_type=* or tree:type=* as type is the key for relations and it is > not that good to use different meanings of one key. Maybe tree=* would work, too. I also spotted type=conifer and wood=coniferous. Would be better to use the same value for both. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved <-> leafed)
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM, fly wrote: > Hey > > Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling for > broad_leafed is. Numbers are almost even in the data. Probably, a nice > task for a bot. > I'm pretty sure it's "broad-leaved". The other sounds only slightly wrong to me, though. __John (BE-speaker) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved <-> leafed)
On 07.07.2013 18:47, fly wrote: > Am 07.07.2013 18:33, schrieb fly: >> Hey >> >> Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling for >> broad_leafed is. Numbers are almost even in the data. Probably, a nice >> task for a bot. > > Sorry, numbers are towards "leaved". Numbers are not necessarily meaningful due to imports. There were several, for example the Girona import using "leafed" ... http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5007703 ... and the Vienna import using "leaved": http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14113662 That being said, I'm also very interested in learning the "right" spelling so we can resolve this issue. >> On the other hand, I wonder if it is useful to use type=* and not >> tree_type=* or tree:type=* as type is the key for relations and it is >> not that good to use different meanings of one key. +1 Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved <-> leafed)
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 5:47 PM, fly wrote: > Am 07.07.2013 18:33, schrieb fly: > > Hey > > > > Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling for > > broad_leafed is. Numbers are almost even in the data. Probably, a nice > > task for a bot. > > Sorry, numbers are towards "leaved". > > > On the other hand, I wonder if it is useful to use type=* and not > > tree_type=* or tree:type=* as type is the key for relations and it is > > not that good to use different meanings of one key. > On further thought, I'd go for type=deciduous, rather than broad-lea[fv]ed. Not quite the same thing (I think larches are deciduous but not broad-leaved) but I think it's the normal "technical" term (the others being "evergreen"). __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved <-> leafed)
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:59 AM, John Sturdy wrote: > On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 5:47 PM, fly wrote: > >> Am 07.07.2013 18:33, schrieb fly: >> > Hey >> > >> > Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling for >> > broad_leafed is. Numbers are almost even in the data. Probably, a nice >> > task for a bot. >> >> Sorry, numbers are towards "leaved". >> >> > On the other hand, I wonder if it is useful to use type=* and not >> > tree_type=* or tree:type=* as type is the key for relations and it is >> > not that good to use different meanings of one key. >> > > On further thought, I'd go for type=deciduous, rather than > broad-lea[fv]ed. Not quite the same thing (I think larches are deciduous > but not broad-leaved) but I think it's the normal "technical" term (the > others being "evergreen"). > > __John > > +1 I suspect the intent was to tag deciduous trees rather than broadleaf(v)ed trees. There are a number of broadleaf evergreens. Good luck on leafed vs. leaved - some British dictionaries list one as a definition for the other :-) Murry (not a British English speaker) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved <-> leafed)
On 07.07.2013 18:59, John Sturdy wrote: > On further thought, I'd go for type=deciduous, rather than > broad-lea[fv]ed. Not quite the same thing (I think larches are > deciduous but not broad-leaved) but I think it's the normal "technical" > term (the others being "evergreen"). That would make the transition quite hard - the current data is based on a different distinction and, as you say, the two are not equivalent. Perhaps more importantly, broad-leaved vs. coniferous is the obvious visual distinction and therefore more useful for rendering and easier to identify without botanical knowledge (except in winter). A separate tag (deciduous=yes/no?) would make more sense because the two attributes are orthogonal. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved <-> leafed)
On 07/07/2013 17:33, fly wrote: Hey Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling for broad_leafed is. The Oxford English Dictionary has broad-leaved as the headword, with broad-leafed as a variant form. The latest edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has only broadleaved (no hyphen). So neither is incorrect, but there is a distinct preference for the -ved form, and modern usage is to treat it as a single word, broadleaved. -- Steve ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved <-> leafed)
On 07.07.2013 18:33, fly wrote: Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling for broad_leafed is. Numbers are almost even in the data. Probably, a nice task for a bot. It was originally broad_leafed in the Wiki, but it was considered a spelling error and therefore it was changed. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:natural%3Dtree#Typo_.22broad_leafed.22.3F On the other hand, I wonder if it is useful to use type=* and not tree_type=* or tree:type=* as type is the key for relations and it is not that good to use different meanings of one key. type=* for trees and relations were introduced in times when people didn't care about this. Now it's implemented like this in all applications and editors, so you cannot change it without breaking something. Unification with wood=* would also be desirable (e.g. foliage=* has been suggested), but has not been approached so far for the same reason. From a biological point of view, neither of these tags is useful. Woods should better be classified by plant community, and for single trees species=* already implies foliage. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved <-> leafed)
There are species that are both broad-leaved and evergreen. One example would be magnolia trees. They drop old leaves in the spring, as new leaves grow. At no time is the tree leafless. John Sturdy wrote: > On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 5:47 PM, fly > wrote: > > > Am 07.07.2013 18:33, schrieb fly: > > > Hey > > > > > > Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling > for > > > broad_leafed is. Numbers are almost even in the data. Probably, a > nice > > > task for a bot. > > > > Sorry, numbers are towards "leaved". > > > > > On the other hand, I wonder if it is useful to use type=* and not > > > tree_type=* or tree:type=* as type is the key for relations and it > is > > > not that good to use different meanings of one key. > > > > On further thought, I'd go for type=deciduous, rather than > broad-lea[fv]ed. Not quite the same thing (I think larches are > deciduous > but not broad-leaved) but I think it's the normal "technical" term > (the > others being "evergreen"). > > __John > > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved <-> leafed)
Am 07.07.2013 19:32, schrieb Tobias Knerr: > On 07.07.2013 18:59, John Sturdy wrote: >> On further thought, I'd go for type=deciduous, rather than >> broad-lea[fv]ed. Not quite the same thing (I think larches are >> deciduous but not broad-leaved) but I think it's the normal "technical" >> term (the others being "evergreen"). > > That would make the transition quite hard - the current data is based on > a different distinction and, as you say, the two are not > equivalent. Perhaps more importantly, broad-leaved vs. coniferous is the > obvious visual distinction and therefore more useful for rendering and > easier to identify without botanical knowledge (except in winter). +1 > A separate tag (deciduous=yes/no?) would make more sense because the two > attributes are orthogonal. You can already use genus=*, species=* and taxon=*, but if you need this go ahead. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
