Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
It's all driven by technocrats who have no clue about what a tree or forest looks like in the real world. Small note, phrases like this are unlikely to be a good idea. 2015-03-11 17:36 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at: On 10.03.2015 21:41, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I'm seeking comments on adding palm to the leaf types at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leaf_type A rendering engine can equate palm and broadleaved. Mappers are mapping palms very frequently, and having this key name I think would reduce confusion. I am glad you added a palm symbol to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree#Possible_Rendering. When I created the conversion table in that section, I wondered why there is no palm symbol. I believed that I had already seen a palm symbol somewhere in the wiki, but I didn't manage to retrieve it. Then I searched google for palm symbols, but did not find anything either. So I was finally in doubt whether palm symbols are in use in carthography at all, although I still believe that palm symbols add value to maps. If broad and needle leaved trees get different symbols, palms should get their symbol as well because of their distinctive look. And - but that's just my subjective opinion - palm symbols look so cute that a map becomes more appealing when it incorporates them. Concerning tagging, there has been an approved and widely used key for a long time with exactly the values we need to distinguish palms, needle leaved and broad leaved trees. This key is type=*. This key worked quite well. However, there were two aesthetic issues with that key: That it is also used for relation types, and that there's a different key wood=* used for areas (natural=wood, landuse=forest). These issues evaporate when you look at them from an analytical perspective. type=* of trees never collides with type=* of relations, because trees are not relations. And wood=* has just another purpose. While type=broad_leaved/coniferous/palm defines the *habitus* of a single plant, wood=* describes a *behaviour* of an area. wood=evergreen means that assimilation (photosynthesis) does not change much with the seasons, and that the tree crowns remain continuously opaque. wood=coniferous means that the crowns are constantly semi-opaque, and that assimilation remains also at an intermediate level. wood=deciduous means that both assimilation and opaqueness have big seasonal amplitudes. This tag has enourmous ecological and econimical implications, and it may also be used to determine good times for documention (photographing, creating arial images) and recreational use. It is absolutely useless to use tags the other way round, i.e. plant habitus for forests or assimilation amplitudes for single trees. Therefore, no serious efforts were made to unify these tags, for many years. Then came Rudolf's surprise attack. He created a flawed proposal that missed all of the above points, and pushed it to voting just 3 weeks later. This was a much too short disussion period for a change affecting tremendous amounts of existing data. Many people, including me, did not have enough spare time in that time frame to participate in the discussion and to single out all of the flaws which include: - The wrong interpretation of the rule that type=* for non-relation elements should be avoided. - The mistaken reduction of wood=* to describe the type of leaves. - The wrong assumption that all of these tags mean the same. - The wrong assumption that new keys make things easier. Obviously, the opposite is true, because mappers and applications now need to know the new tags *in addition* to the conventional tags. - An ugly key name leaf_type=* although the more sound foliage=* key had been suggested on Talk:Key:wood as early as in 2012 by Alv. - broadleaved and needleleaved with no underscores - information loss due to the missing equivalent to type=palm - and worst of all, the deprecating established keys thing. There were more than 1 million of uses for wood=* and type=*. How can a proposal deprecate tags used a million times? Do 27 votes on a wiki page legitimate for the deprecation of tags used by 1 distinct mappers on 100 objects? Well, you could think that a proposal is one thing, and actual usage is another thing. Let's see how real mappers will accept it in real life. But in this very case, real world mappers got no chance. Immediately after voting has ended, Rudolf marked type=* and wood=* as deprecated on the natural=tree and wood=* wiki pages. I guess that some JOSM developers wanted to keep their editor cutting-edge by changing templates or suchlike to the new tagging scheme. And some validators spit out warnings when they come across the decprecated tags. As we all now, some sofa mappers spend all day searching for things to correct, using validators. These people do not care about how map features represent the real
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
On 10.03.2015 21:41, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: I'm seeking comments on adding palm to the leaf types at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leaf_type A rendering engine can equate palm and broadleaved. Mappers are mapping palms very frequently, and having this key name I think would reduce confusion. I am glad you added a palm symbol to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree#Possible_Rendering. When I created the conversion table in that section, I wondered why there is no palm symbol. I believed that I had already seen a palm symbol somewhere in the wiki, but I didn't manage to retrieve it. Then I searched google for palm symbols, but did not find anything either. So I was finally in doubt whether palm symbols are in use in carthography at all, although I still believe that palm symbols add value to maps. If broad and needle leaved trees get different symbols, palms should get their symbol as well because of their distinctive look. And - but that's just my subjective opinion - palm symbols look so cute that a map becomes more appealing when it incorporates them. Concerning tagging, there has been an approved and widely used key for a long time with exactly the values we need to distinguish palms, needle leaved and broad leaved trees. This key is type=*. This key worked quite well. However, there were two aesthetic issues with that key: That it is also used for relation types, and that there's a different key wood=* used for areas (natural=wood, landuse=forest). These issues evaporate when you look at them from an analytical perspective. type=* of trees never collides with type=* of relations, because trees are not relations. And wood=* has just another purpose. While type=broad_leaved/coniferous/palm defines the *habitus* of a single plant, wood=* describes a *behaviour* of an area. wood=evergreen means that assimilation (photosynthesis) does not change much with the seasons, and that the tree crowns remain continuously opaque. wood=coniferous means that the crowns are constantly semi-opaque, and that assimilation remains also at an intermediate level. wood=deciduous means that both assimilation and opaqueness have big seasonal amplitudes. This tag has enourmous ecological and econimical implications, and it may also be used to determine good times for documention (photographing, creating arial images) and recreational use. It is absolutely useless to use tags the other way round, i.e. plant habitus for forests or assimilation amplitudes for single trees. Therefore, no serious efforts were made to unify these tags, for many years. Then came Rudolf's surprise attack. He created a flawed proposal that missed all of the above points, and pushed it to voting just 3 weeks later. This was a much too short disussion period for a change affecting tremendous amounts of existing data. Many people, including me, did not have enough spare time in that time frame to participate in the discussion and to single out all of the flaws which include: - The wrong interpretation of the rule that type=* for non-relation elements should be avoided. - The mistaken reduction of wood=* to describe the type of leaves. - The wrong assumption that all of these tags mean the same. - The wrong assumption that new keys make things easier. Obviously, the opposite is true, because mappers and applications now need to know the new tags *in addition* to the conventional tags. - An ugly key name leaf_type=* although the more sound foliage=* key had been suggested on Talk:Key:wood as early as in 2012 by Alv. - broadleaved and needleleaved with no underscores - information loss due to the missing equivalent to type=palm - and worst of all, the deprecating established keys thing. There were more than 1 million of uses for wood=* and type=*. How can a proposal deprecate tags used a million times? Do 27 votes on a wiki page legitimate for the deprecation of tags used by 1 distinct mappers on 100 objects? Well, you could think that a proposal is one thing, and actual usage is another thing. Let's see how real mappers will accept it in real life. But in this very case, real world mappers got no chance. Immediately after voting has ended, Rudolf marked type=* and wood=* as deprecated on the natural=tree and wood=* wiki pages. I guess that some JOSM developers wanted to keep their editor cutting-edge by changing templates or suchlike to the new tagging scheme. And some validators spit out warnings when they come across the decprecated tags. As we all now, some sofa mappers spend all day searching for things to correct, using validators. These people do not care about how map features represent the real world, or who mapped them or why, or who will ever use the data. They only care about what the validator says. If a validator blinks red, there's a need to change something, and if it does not blink red, everything is fine. This results in mass edits that violate the mechanical edits policy. But those people do
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
On 11.03.2015 17:58, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: It's all driven by technocrats who have no clue about what a tree or forest looks like in the real world. Small note, phrases like this are unlikely to be a good idea. Let's assume that technocrats don't read this. :-) -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
There are 533 413 elements with the “leaf_type” key. Only 83 of them have the value “palm”. This are 0.0156 % and certainly not “widely used” at all! I suppose you want to make a mechanical edit to change the existing 13 056 elements with type=palm. But you would change the description of leaf_type=*. You would destroy the clean description of a clean and well-defined key. An important reasons for the introduction of leaf_type=* was that the previous solutions were too complex, not well coordinated, too detailed – and thought didn’t work well. leaf_type=* is an effort to keep things simple and clear. It’s not good to break this. You should not change the description of leaf_type=*. You should use leaf_type=broadleaved and – if you want – add some other tag to make a more exact description. 2015-03-11 4:54 GMT, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:01 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: There are places where there are an amazing mount of Palm trees, and confusing them with a broadleaf tree is not great. But is this the main way the species (or class or whatever) of tree is defined? I thought there was some species tag for this as well - or is it too difficult when mapping to know the type of tree beyond it’s leaf? There are species and genus tags, but many mappers won't be able to fill that those. Palm on the other hand is easy, and makes a great map symbol also. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Lukas Sommer ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:40 PM, Russell Deffner russell.deff...@hotosm.org wrote: Hi, I hope this helps (and that I’m remembering correctly my education from forestry school in the states), In taxonomy of trees there are two kinds of families - gymnosperms and angiosperms, commonly called deciduous and coniferous but actually scientifically separated by their reproductive difference not what their leaves look like, do, etc. More commonly you here layman terms depending on context: -‘Leaf Type’ (the structure of the leaves): needle, broad and/or palm -‘Leaf Retention’ (if they fall off or not): evergreen, autumn/broad, and/or Palm - ‘Wood Type’ (for wood product industry): soft, hard, exotic/ornamental Araucariaceae happens to be my favourite gymnosperm, but why get all technical? The species= tag is available for that. What you've got there is a good looking list of what's easily observed about an individual tree, which is what most mappers can do. It's pretty close to leaf_type/leaf_cycle and wood, minus the palm trees. Existing land cover databases mostly talk about forests, not trees: http://bioval.jrc.ec.europa.eu/products/glc2000/legend.php http://landcover.usgs.gov/classes.php#upland And mapping individual trees, as many people are doing for whatever reason, is slightly different. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
Hi, I hope this helps (and that I’m remembering correctly my education from forestry school in the states), In taxonomy of trees there are two kinds of families - gymnosperms and angiosperms, commonly called deciduous and coniferous but actually scientifically separated by their reproductive difference not what their leaves look like, do, etc. More commonly you here layman terms depending on context: -‘Leaf Type’ (the structure of the leaves): needle, broad and/or palm -‘Leaf Retention’ (if they fall off or not): evergreen, autumn/broad, and/or Palm - ‘Wood Type’ (for wood product industry): soft, hard, exotic/ornamental Maybe we need a key/value for each 'category'; and genus and species is probably best for 'micro-mapping' individual trees or maybe scientific_name=[genus_species] and/or common_name=* example pinus_ponderosa / ponderosa_pine Wish I had more time to work on a proposal/update/upgrade to the wood/natural tagging, but can help answer questions (was going to chime in about the diameter/crown discussion – there’s a whole slew of measurements and how to make them regarding individual trees versus forest plots/stands, etc.) Cheers, =Russ Russell Deffner ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
It would be harder to process and break existing data consumers. I think that cascading tagging style - [leaf_type=broadleaved; broadleaved=palm] would be better. It provides full information without growing list of valid values of leaf_type. 2015-03-11 2:32 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote: So it this seems to me that this is just a special case of broadleaved. The difficulty is that palms are widely mapped now, and changing type=palm to leaf_type=broadleaved feels like removing information. Yet that's what the wiki recommends doing. However, leaf_type=palm would loose no data, and still be recognizable as a broadleaved leaf type. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
+1 Gesendet:Mittwoch, 11. Mrz 2015 um 08:13 Uhr Von:Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com An:Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Betreff:Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type There are 533413 elements with the leaf_type key. Only 83 of them have the value palm. This are 0.0156% and certainly not widely used at all! I suppose you want to make a mechanical edit to change the existing 13 056 elements with type=palm. But you would change the description of leaf_type=*. You would destroy the clean description of a clean and well-defined key. An important reasons for the introduction of leaf_type=* was that the previous solutions were too complex, not well coordinated, too detailed and thought didnt work well. leaf_type=* is an effort to keep things simple and clear. Its not good to break this. You should not change the description of leaf_type=*. You should use leaf_type=broadleaved and if you want add some other tag to make a more exact description. 2015-03-11 4:54 GMT, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:01 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: There are places where there are an amazing mount of Palm trees, and confusing them with a broadleaf tree is not great. But is this the main way the species (or class or whatever) of tree is defined? I thought there was some species tag for this as well - or is it too difficult when mapping to know the type of tree beyond its leaf? There are species and genus tags, but many mappers wont be able to fill that those. Palm on the other hand is easy, and makes a great map symbol also. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Lukas Sommer ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
I oppose this suggestion. The key:leaf_type should be as simple as possible. Palms are included in leaf_type=broadleaved. The values relate to the Land Cover Classification System (LCCS) by FAO. I dont know any classification systems with leaf_type=palm. To refine the tagging you can use key:species or key:genus or key:taxon. Im not sure which will fit the best. Gesendet:Dienstag, 10. Mrz 2015 um 21:41 Uhr Von:Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com An:Tag discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org Betreff:[Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type Im seeking comments on adding palm to the leaf types at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leaf_type A rendering engine can equate palm and broadleaved. Mappers are mapping palms very frequently, and having this key name I think would reduce confusion. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
2015-03-11 12:24 GMT+01:00 Rudolf Martin rudolf.mar...@gmx.de: Perhaps we can find a general simple tagging for palms. key:genus and key:species expect the scientific name of a plant. These are normaly not known to non-botanists. you could also use common names, e.g. species:de=Ölpalme or species:en=oil_palm but you'd still have to know the species quite well in order to be able to use these tags. taxon:en=palm may be a good solution, although I would prefer taxon=palm. Unfortunable the latter don't fit to the taxon definition. I think it is important to have the language suffix when tagging common names, otherwise we'd end up with a mess. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
2015-03-11 7:40 GMT+01:00 Russell Deffner russell.deff...@hotosm.org: In taxonomy of trees there are two kinds of families - gymnosperms and angiosperms, commonly called deciduous and coniferous but actually scientifically separated by their reproductive difference not what their leaves look like, do, etc. Not that I knew better, but I've looked it up ;-) If I understood this page correctly, angiosperms are not a family in the taxon sense but something higher than an order: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant See here for the taxon hierarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Biological_classification_L_Pengo_vflip.svg cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
2015-03-11 5:54 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: There are species and genus tags, but many mappers won't be able to fill that those. Palm on the other hand is easy, and makes a great map symbol also. If you're not sure about the genus or species, you could also use more generic taxon like family=Arecaceae or common names, like family:en=palm Or following this page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:taxon taxon:family=Arecaceae taxon:family:en=palm or if you don't know that palms are a family: taxon:en=palm (at least that's what the taxon page suggests). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
Ok, I’m not sure that ‘family’ is the correct taxonomy for angio/gymnosperms (maybe it’s some sort of sub-order), or maybe that wiki-page is just bad; here’s another by comparison that seems to match my memory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_trees_and_shrubs_by_taxonomic_family I’ll admit, I concentrated in Fire Science, so tree/plant ID and such wasn’t as important to me as intensity and spread which use a whole other classification system for ‘fuel type’ =Russ From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 3:44 AM To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools Subject: Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type 2015-03-11 7:40 GMT+01:00 Russell Deffner russell.deff...@hotosm.org: In taxonomy of trees there are two kinds of families - gymnosperms and angiosperms, commonly called deciduous and coniferous but actually scientifically separated by their reproductive difference not what their leaves look like, do, etc. Not that I knew better, but I've looked it up ;-) If I understood this page correctly, angiosperms are not a family in the taxon sense but something higher than an order: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plant See here for the taxon hierarchy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Biological_classification_L_Pengo_vflip.svg cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
It certainly seems to me that palm trees are different enough from what I usually consider to be a broad-leafed tree to warrant their own leaf_type. +1 Palms are their own group of trees distinct from broad-leaved trees or conifers and it makes sense to tag with a different value. Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
+1 leaf_type=palm would loose no data, and still be recognizable as a broadleaved leaf type. It certainly seems to me that palm trees are different enough from what I usually consider to be a broad-leafed tree to warrant their own leaf_type. My 2 cents On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote: So it this seems to me that this is just a special case of broadleaved. The difficulty is that palms are widely mapped now, and changing type=palm to leaf_type=broadleaved feels like removing information. Yet that's what the wiki recommends doing. However, leaf_type=palm would loose no data, and still be recognizable as a broadleaved leaf type. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 9:01 PM, johnw jo...@mac.com wrote: There are places where there are an amazing mount of Palm trees, and confusing them with a broadleaf tree is not great. But is this the main way the species (or class or whatever) of tree is defined? I thought there was some species tag for this as well - or is it too difficult when mapping to know the type of tree beyond it’s leaf? There are species and genus tags, but many mappers won't be able to fill that those. Palm on the other hand is easy, and makes a great map symbol also. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Lukas Sommer sommer...@gmail.com wrote: So it this seems to me that this is just a special case of broadleaved. The difficulty is that palms are widely mapped now, and changing type=palm to leaf_type=broadleaved feels like removing information. Yet that's what the wiki recommends doing. However, leaf_type=palm would loose no data, and still be recognizable as a broadleaved leaf type. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
There are places where there are an amazing mount of Palm trees, and confusing them with a broadleaf tree is not great. But is this the main way the species (or class or whatever) of tree is defined? it thought there was some species tag for this as well - or is it too difficult when mapping to know the type of tree beyond it’s leaf? It would be nice if trees marked get a color or shape at extremely high zoom (z19?). Many park maps in Japan map the trees (yes, individual trees) as to what color stereotype it’s blooms are. (soft pink dots for cherry, magenta for plum, etc), as people often go looking in the parks for the blooms in spring. Javbw On Mar 11, 2015, at 12:39 PM, Mike Thompson miketh...@gmail.com wrote: It certainly seems to me that palm trees are different enough from what I usually consider to be a broad-leafed tree to warrant their own leaf_type. +1 Palms are their own group of trees distinct from broad-leaved trees or conifers and it makes sense to tag with a different value. Mike ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
I'm seeking comments on adding palm to the leaf types at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leaf_type A rendering engine can equate palm and broadleaved. Mappers are mapping palms very frequently, and having this key name I think would reduce confusion. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Leaf type of palm for leaf_type
“palm” is described explicitly as an example at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:leaf_type%3Dbroadleaved So it this seems to me that this is just a special case of broadleaved. I have doubts in adding a new value which is just a special case of an existing value – in the same key. We loose the hirarchy. Probably this won’t reduce confusion, but rather increase confusion. 2015-03-10 20:41 GMT, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com: I'm seeking comments on adding palm to the leaf types at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:leaf_type A rendering engine can equate palm and broadleaved. Mappers are mapping palms very frequently, and having this key name I think would reduce confusion. -- Lukas Sommer ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
