2010/9/6 NopMap <ekkeh...@gmx.de>: >> Are you seriously pretending that all those are mapped according to >> your interpretation of the wiki? My guess is that the ones you would >> think that fit into this definition are less then 1%. > No. I say that we don't know how many of them have been used that way - but > I have been building and using a hiking map for 1,5 years now, rendering and > observing those tree tags
I guess this depends on the area / availability of hires aerial imagery and completeness of the map in general. In your area this wasn't probably available, so nobody cared to map trees. > years, you'd think it has seen some use. I would think that maybe 20% of the > nodes are significant landmark trees. Seems a high number to me, but even if it was true: this means that 80% of all trees are not tagged according to what you consider the valid definition. I think at this point we should adjust the tag description to what is actually tagged and not what has been written there for years and nobody (well, 80%) cared for it or took it literally. Or what would be the alternative that you suggest? > So even if your assumtion is correct, 1% means throwing away 3729 > well-tagged nodes, in my expectation it would be throwing away some 75000 > good nodes. I was at no point speaking about "throwing away" nodes. I would expect a special tree to be described by it's specialties, and I would never expect one simple tag like "natural=tree" to refer to something extraordinary and special. > I am always opposed to needlessly destroying the work of those mappers. me too. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
