Thanks, that makes sense now. Should probably be deprecated then, not obsolete since there are some uses.
But then I checked the other values of denotation=, eg denotation=urban, denotation=avenue, =landmark, =natural_monument. Boy, that's a mess. The whole key was poorly thought out. It looks like many mappers don't realize that database users can find natural=tree within landuse=residential/commercial/retail to find urban trees, or within leisure=park for park trees, or search within 10 m of a highway, etc. I've added some comments about the necessity and verifiability of these tags (landmark and natural_monument seem to be subjective opinions about the importance of a tree, unless in some places there are official landmark or monument trees, but this isn't possible to tell). Joseph On 7/29/19, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > sent from a phone > >> On 29. Jul 2019, at 08:13, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Someone needs to check how denotation=cluster is >> actually used now days. > > > this tag was introduced through an automated edit many years ago with the > reasoning that natural=tree should only be used for “special” and alone > standing trees, so that all other trees which were standing in groups had > gotten the cluster tag. Meanwhile the saner approach is to tag special trees > with additional tags and accept that natural=tree has no other implications > than “a tree”. IMHO it is ok to see denotation=cluster as deprecated. > > 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
