On Wednesday 28 June 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > Again, if this is improper it can be removed. > > I think operator is fine for someone who takes care (and > responsibility) for urban trees, as is for forests in rural areas. > Would "maintainer" be more precise? "maintenance" has only values > like "gritting" and "salting", "maintainer" is rarely used so far > (btw. all but a handful on a french motorway A16) It also doesn't > seem we would have to distinguish from other uses of operator tags on > trees, there's no ambiguity.
If locals in Ottawa consider these trees to be operated/maintained by the city and make the distinction between city operated trees and other trees then i would have no objections against 'operator'. It is just that here i would not make this distinction since there are many trees on public ground that are clearly 'unmaintained' and others, especially young ones, in intensive care - but likewise on public and private ground. And the whole spectrum in between. And i am also not sure if trees at or on the medial strip of federal/state roads within a city are responsibility of the city or not. So overall i would consider operator for natural=tree to be non-verifiable here. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
