M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 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?
>
That is not true. There already is an extension tag, denotation=avenue or
denotation=urban and some people have used it when mass-mapping generic
trees. This is compatible extension.
Some people mass add generic trees with no further tagging, that is the
problem as the trees are misinterpreted.
So not all of those 80% are tagged against the definition, but an unknown
part of them.
The alternative is:
- use natural=tree and denotation=* to distinguish trees
- fix the new generic trees in the cities to use denotation=urban
- keep the default meaning for trees without denotation as landmarks,
compatible with existing definition
bye
Nop
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5502843.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
