[Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved - leafed)
Hey Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling for broad_leafed is. Numbers are almost even in the data. Probably, a nice task for a bot. On the other hand, I wonder if it is useful to use type=* and not tree_type=* or tree:type=* as type is the key for relations and it is not that good to use different meanings of one key. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved - leafed)
Am 07.07.2013 18:33, schrieb fly: Hey Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling for broad_leafed is. Numbers are almost even in the data. Probably, a nice task for a bot. Sorry, numbers are towards leaved. On the other hand, I wonder if it is useful to use type=* and not tree_type=* or tree:type=* as type is the key for relations and it is not that good to use different meanings of one key. Maybe tree=* would work, too. I also spotted type=conifer and wood=coniferous. Would be better to use the same value for both. fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved - leafed)
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Hey Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling for broad_leafed is. Numbers are almost even in the data. Probably, a nice task for a bot. I'm pretty sure it's broad-leaved. The other sounds only slightly wrong to me, though. __John (BE-speaker) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved - leafed)
On 07.07.2013 18:47, fly wrote: Am 07.07.2013 18:33, schrieb fly: Hey Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling for broad_leafed is. Numbers are almost even in the data. Probably, a nice task for a bot. Sorry, numbers are towards leaved. Numbers are not necessarily meaningful due to imports. There were several, for example the Girona import using leafed ... http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5007703 ... and the Vienna import using leaved: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/14113662 That being said, I'm also very interested in learning the right spelling so we can resolve this issue. On the other hand, I wonder if it is useful to use type=* and not tree_type=* or tree:type=* as type is the key for relations and it is not that good to use different meanings of one key. +1 Tobias ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved - leafed)
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 5:47 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 07.07.2013 18:33, schrieb fly: Hey Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling for broad_leafed is. Numbers are almost even in the data. Probably, a nice task for a bot. Sorry, numbers are towards leaved. On the other hand, I wonder if it is useful to use type=* and not tree_type=* or tree:type=* as type is the key for relations and it is not that good to use different meanings of one key. On further thought, I'd go for type=deciduous, rather than broad-lea[fv]ed. Not quite the same thing (I think larches are deciduous but not broad-leaved) but I think it's the normal technical term (the others being evergreen). __John ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved - leafed)
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:59 AM, John Sturdy jcg.stu...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 5:47 PM, fly lowfligh...@googlemail.com wrote: Am 07.07.2013 18:33, schrieb fly: Hey Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling for broad_leafed is. Numbers are almost even in the data. Probably, a nice task for a bot. Sorry, numbers are towards leaved. On the other hand, I wonder if it is useful to use type=* and not tree_type=* or tree:type=* as type is the key for relations and it is not that good to use different meanings of one key. On further thought, I'd go for type=deciduous, rather than broad-lea[fv]ed. Not quite the same thing (I think larches are deciduous but not broad-leaved) but I think it's the normal technical term (the others being evergreen). __John +1 I suspect the intent was to tag deciduous trees rather than broadleaf(v)ed trees. There are a number of broadleaf evergreens. Good luck on leafed vs. leaved - some British dictionaries list one as a definition for the other :-) Murry (not a British English speaker) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved - leafed)
On 07.07.2013 18:59, John Sturdy wrote: On further thought, I'd go for type=deciduous, rather than broad-lea[fv]ed. Not quite the same thing (I think larches are deciduous but not broad-leaved) but I think it's the normal technical term (the others being evergreen). That would make the transition quite hard - the current data is based on a different distinction and, as you say, the two are not equivalent. Perhaps more importantly, broad-leaved vs. coniferous is the obvious visual distinction and therefore more useful for rendering and easier to identify without botanical knowledge (except in winter). A separate tag (deciduous=yes/no?) would make more sense because the two attributes are orthogonal. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
