On 02/03/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote: > He was interested in > "special" trees and was asuming that trees close to other trees were less > "special" (something I don't agree with per se, but in practice might have > worked back then, because the mappers mapping "special trees" were > typically mapping only those special trees, hence there was less > probability of other trees _mapped_ nearby, even if there were actual trees > in the real world).
Ok, that's a reasonable intent. But not a reasonable method, because the heuristic is flawed, because "storing the result of an osm query in osm data" is bad practice, and because a list of "normal" trees is insanely harder to maintain than a list of "special" trees. So there's not much to redeem the tag AFAICS. I'm happy to see it deleted from objects, surely starting with that one import and then double-checking the other changesets. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
