sent from a phone
> On 28. Jun 2017, at 10:54, Rory McCann <[email protected]> wrote: > > yes, "dbh" does seem to be a word. it's doubtlessly an abbreviation, which we generally substitute by the full version if possible (would be diameter at breast height). I would tag this as trunk_diameter or similar to the used diameter_crown as diameter_trunk Or just as diameter similar to circumference (which is documented on the tree page). The specifics (measured at 1.3 meters above ground or similar in imperial units) could be implicit (and documented in the wiki). For me, dbh should not be introduced as it is not a word but an abbreviation, using a human readable term makes more sense. As circumference is already documented and introduced, and is easier measurable on the ground (ok, it depends on your tools, with measuring tape the circumference is easier, with a rigid ruler the diameter is easier) without logging the tree, and as the diameter can roughly be estimated with the circumference given (assuming a circular section), we could also think about converting dbh to circumference tags. Having both seems redundant, and these numbers are indicative anyway. cheers, Martin https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:diameter
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
