On 09.02.2019 20:15, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Because the two feature types exist at different levels of abstraction
(a tree is *part* of a tree row), I do not see this as a violation of
one feature, one element.
Instead, I consider it comparable to mapping building:part areas within
a building=residential outline within a landuse=residential, or mapping
amenity=parking_space areas within an amenity=parking.
On 09.02.2019 20:14, John Sturdy wrote:
> I think it's also comparable to mapping the pylons of a power line and the
line itself.
I would not consider those analogies applicable.
Both pylon and line exist, and both building:part and building are tangible
objects.
The tree_row, on the other hand, is a virtual collection of trees, and forming a row is just in the
perspective of the observer. There is nothing tangible between the trees, once the individual,
tangible trunks are mapped.
Thus the tree_row is a simplification, because the mapper was not able to map
the trees.
Otherwise I could just arbitrarily connect some trees in a park and declare it
a row.
tom
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
