Martin: For me, dbh should not be introduced as it is not a word but an abbreviation, using a human readable term makes more sense. This is perfectly reasonable. I like your suggestion of using diameter_trunk as it matches what's being used for current tree tags.
Christoph: i was worried about mismatches with the existing data in OSM. It is quite possible that resolving those usually needs to modify the existing data rather than the trees but you should have a solid plan for handling this kind of problem. I am still a little confused by what you mean. Obviously if there's a tree in the middle of a building, that means something is not right. But what I was trying to say was that the trees in this dataset will only appear where an actual tree is in real life. There shouldn't be any cases of rogue trees in the middle of rivers or buildings because a tree just wouldn't be there in real life. I guess the most likely scenario would be a tree that had been cut down in the last 4 years and a building placed where the tree previously was. In that case, using various imagery (Bing, DigitalGlobe, OSC, Mapillary, etc.) would be used to verify that the tree no longer stands and should be removed before adding it to the map. However, all of the trees that are owned and maintained by the City of Ottawa are either in parks or near the edge of roads. In either case, it's very unlikely a building would have been constructed in these areas. That does bring up the scenario of a tree being misplaced in the middle of a road. These should be easy to spot because one tree would not be inline with all the other trees.
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
