Hi
I disagree with Nop for all the reasons discussed here.
Is there someone with more knowledge than me, run a bot to reverse his
changes?
Cheers
Dave F.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/ta
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:19:00 +
"John F. Eldredge" wrote:
> I agree with Pierre-Alain. Whether or not a particular tree is worth
> noting is a subjective decision, and can be based upon its
> appearance, its location, what notable events may have occurred near
> it, etc. Yes, being the only
On 9/11/10 12:06 PM, Chris Hill wrote:
You have proved how skilful you are at automated edits, so please, use
these powerful skills to remove the graffiti you have added to so many
objects across the world.
i think that he simultaneously ran this bot while announcing
that he was opting out
Nop,
Thanks for adding tags to trees in my locality.
I assume from the fixme tag (fixme = set better denotation) on each
tree that you think I should be denoting something about the tree. I
added a type, a botanical name (name:botanical), I gathered the data
from a survey on the ground, oh ye
only possible factor. A bot
can't judge these other factors; it requires a human with local knowledge, and
different people with the same local knowledge may have varying opinions about
the notability of a particular tree.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] tagging single t
2010/9/10 NopMap :
> John F. Eldredge wrote:
>> Perhaps i've miss something but i haven't see a discussion about a bot
> Yes, you missed something. Check the posts from Sept. 7th:
> Tagging ML:
> Anthony-6: "Can't that analysis be expanded to the world, and the trees
> retagged?"
> M∡rtin Koppenhoe
Throwing my hat in like a true masochist...
I have added perhaps 100 trees - urban/rural, in 'clusters' and on streets
where I would not say there is a cluster but where they are closer than 50m.
I am also interested in an import from my local council.
The wiki is clearly ambiguous and not follow
NopMap wrote:
> Yes, you missed something.
I think you also miss lot of things.
Reply you got were mostly sarcastic and it's a vague discussion in an
obscur ML.
Launch a bot after receiving 3 confuse answers on a mailing list is not
a consensus.
Many users do not read this thread and discove
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM, NopMap wrote:
> So please keep complaining, I am removing myself from the discussion. I have
> made my point three times over. As far as I am concerned, the problem is
> mostly remedied. If you still think it is a good idea to destroy some 5
> nodes of inform
of what
had been suggested.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
From :mailto:ekkeh...@gmx.de
Date :Fri Sep 10 16:00:02 America/Chicago 2010
Hi!
John F. Eldredge wrote:
>
> Perhaps i've miss something but i haven't see a discussion abo
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:20 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:54 PM, NopMap wrote:
>> But it is a fact that a tree ist not standing alone. I'd rather mark facts
>> with a tag.
>
> I suggest you start marking buildings which are within 50 meters of
> each other with denotation=cluste
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM, NopMap wrote:
> I did what was asked for. You can't mark landmarks automatically, but can
> add a hint to those that are likely unremarkable. Since it is just an
> additional tag, it is non-destructive, unlike re-inventing the tagging
> scheme. If you don't like it
Hi!
John F. Eldredge wrote:
>
> Perhaps i've miss something but i haven't see a discussion about a bot
>
Yes, you missed something. Check the posts from Sept. 7th:
Tagging ML:
Anthony-6: "Can't that analysis be expanded to the world, and the trees
retagged?"
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer: "can't you
On 9/10/10 4:27 PM, NopMap wrote:
A few corrections are in order...
Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
* Nop points out that the wiki definition of trees says a "lone tree"
and interprets this as a prominent tree (a landmark, etc.).
The wiki says: "lone or significant" tree and I interpret that as a
A few corrections are in order...
Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
>
> * Nop points out that the wiki definition of trees says a "lone tree"
> and interprets this as a prominent tree (a landmark, etc.).
>
The wiki says: "lone or significant" tree and I interpret that as a
prominent tree.
Serge Wro
2010/9/10 Tobias Knerr :
> For the record, I think that the denotation=cluster tag is a bad idea.
> It's vague, overlaps with the other values of denotation and doesn't add
> any information that wasn't there before.
as I already expressed here: I completely agree.
cheers,
Martin
_
John F. Eldredge wrote:
> He noted earlier in the thread that the bot is tagging any tree that is
> within 50 meters of another tree as denotation=cluster.
> The wiki says to use this notation for trees that are not single trees, but
> does not specify what distance distinguishes a single tree fr
.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
>From :mailto:pdora...@mac.com
Date :Fri Sep 10 12:34:34 America/Chicago 2010
Serge Wroclawski
wrote:
> Maybe you missed the beginning of this painful thread.
Thank you for this summary.
I agree to your position.
I
Serge Wroclawski
wrote:
> Maybe you missed the beginning of this painful thread.
Thank you for this summary.
I agree to your position.
I notice today a bot (called Nop) has starting changing tag on single
tree by adding denotation=cluster
I don't know what it means and what his the bot algori
"Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:13 AM, David Groom
wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something in this discussion, but what exactly is so
important about the fact t
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:13 AM, David Groom wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something in this discussion, but what exactly is so
> important about the fact that the tree is standing alone that it needs to
> specifically be tagged as standing (or not standing) alone?
David,
Maybe you missed the begi
- Original Message -
From: "NopMap"
To:
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2010 4:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
Hi!
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
so 2 trees are a "cluster"? IMHO that's also agains your own
intentions, because 2 trees can
On 10/09/2010 04:54, NopMap wrote:
Hi!
Because you only can assume that something probably is a landmark.
But it is a fact that a tree ist not standing alone. I'd rather mark facts
with a tag.
But you're making assumptions that it's not a landmark.
IMO, 50 metres does not make a "cluster"
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:54 PM, NopMap wrote:
> But it is a fact that a tree ist not standing alone. I'd rather mark facts
> with a tag.
I suggest you start marking buildings which are within 50 meters of
each other with denotation=cluster next.
The more facts, the better.
Hi!
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> so 2 trees are a "cluster"? IMHO that's also agains your own
> intentions, because 2 trees can be as significant as one. Even three
> or four. Traditionally, oaks appear in small groups of 3 to 5
> ("Eichengruppe"). They are mostly landmarks or at least good
2010/9/9 NopMap :
> And what use could that possibly be in a restricted area like that?
> Or did you forget the smileys?
yes, sorry, that was not completely serious.
> From the topology analysis, I have marked every tree without further
> information that has another tree within 50m with "denota
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
>> Please: someone write a bot to add landmark=probably to every tree in
>> Germany,
>
>
> -1, please just for the Nürnberg area.
>
And what use could that possibly be in a restricted area like that?
Or did you forget the smileys?
From the topology analysis, I h
2010/9/8 Richard Mann :
> Please: someone write a bot to add landmark=probably to every tree in
> Germany,
-1, please just for the Nürnberg area.
and stop this debate. If it's a landmark, then it's worth
> adding a tag to say so.
+1
cheers,
Martin
___
Please: someone write a bot to add landmark=probably to every tree in
Germany, and stop this debate. If it's a landmark, then it's worth
adding a tag to say so.
Richard
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/li
At 2010-09-05 18:22, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 8:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> In practice, it seems unlikely that any one will try to tag every tree
in a forest
It's entirely possible to map every tree in a city. Someone else
mentioned Girona, I'll mention that Washin
I have an additional analysis task:
We know how much trees are tagged with, and how much are tagged without
additional tag, but:
1) How much users added trees with additional tags?
2) How much users added trees with additional tags and trees without?
3) How much users added trees without addit
2010/9/7 Anthony :
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:27 AM, NopMap wrote:
>>
>>
>> Anthony-6 wrote:
>>>
>>> Where does the 58,000 number come from again?
>>>
>>
>> If you scale up the result of the German analysis to the global numbers,
>> you'd get about 59000 individial trees that are intended as land
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:27 AM, NopMap wrote:
>
>
> Anthony-6 wrote:
>>
>> Where does the 58,000 number come from again?
>>
>
> If you scale up the result of the German analysis to the global numbers,
> you'd get about 59000 individial trees that are intended as landmark trees
> according to the
Anthony-6 wrote:
>
> Where does the 58,000 number come from again?
>
If you scale up the result of the German analysis to the global numbers,
you'd get about 59000 individial trees that are intended as landmark trees
according to the wiki definition and would loose their meaning if the
definit
John F. Eldredge wrote:
>
> It seems reasonable to me that a node simply tagged as a tree, with no
> other information, could be single or not-single, a landmark or not a
> landmark.
>
Again. We are not freely discussing a model to implement in the future. We
have a lot of work already done.
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:11 AM, NopMap wrote:
> Who's going to find, check and re-tag those 58000 trees?
Where does the 58,000 number come from again?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Andreas Labres wrote:
>
> I don't see the problem why one could not tag every tree as "this is a
> tree" and
> additionally tag some of these as "this one is special, some kind of
> landmark or
> something". (We have some "Bildbäume" here that could be tagged
> additionally.)
>
> And the Garmin
uldn't be classed as single trees, using the German
definition.
---Original Email---
Subject :Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
>From :mailto:emac...@gmail.com
Date :Tue Sep 07 06:03:56 America/Chicago 2010
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 2:55 PM, NopMap wrote:
>
>
> That is no
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 2:55 PM, NopMap wrote:
>
>
> That is not a solution. For 4 years people have done valid tagging, using
> the definition in the wiki for significant trees. If you change the meaning,
> no denotation=landmark will magically appear there, so the information gets
> lost.
As Ric
Hello,
I don't see the problem why one could not tag every tree as "this is a tree" and
additionally tag some of these as "this one is special, some kind of landmark or
something". (We have some "Bildbäume" here that could be tagged additionally.)
And the Garmins and others would probably only i
On 7 September 2010 17:08, NopMap wrote:
> I dont't think so. Considering that 75% of the trees are from only 3 users,
> they could be quickly fixed.
372,969 * 75% / 3 = 93,242 per user would seem to indicate an import
of some kind...
___
Tagging maili
2010/9/7 NopMap :
> I dont't think so. Considering that 75% of the trees are from only 3 users,
> they could be quickly fixed.
IMHO tagging ordinary trees as "non-significant _or_ not lone" (which
is the wiki definition) is an absurdity. If we cannot agree on tagging
special trees in a special wa
Richard Welty-2 wrote:
>
> i think the situation is that the information is already lost.
>
I dont't think so. Considering that 75% of the trees are from only 3 users,
they could be quickly fixed.
bye
Nop
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-
On 9/6/10 2:55 PM, NopMap wrote:
That is not a solution. For 4 years people have done valid tagging, using
the definition in the wiki for significant trees. If you change the meaning,
no denotation=landmark will magically appear there, so the information gets
lost. The mappers who originally con
2010/9/6 NopMap :
> I have done a statistical analysis of the distribution of tree nodes in
> Germany. The result indicates that 4585 trees are actually single trees.
> (They don't have another tree within 50m). That makes about 15.8 %. Assuming
> the same rate globally, you'd throw away the inform
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 6:14 PM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Many people are tagging single trees, and usually use natural=tree for
> this. Now there are some voices on the German ML that say,
> natural=tree is reserved for "special" trees, and can therefore not be
> used for "ordinary" trees.
>
>
On the German ML, Fabian Schmid has posted a user statistic, showing that the
377040 trees have been mapped/touched by 2579 mappers. 148 have added at
least 100 trees, 2246 have added less than 30 trees, so cannot be involved
with mass additions of generic trees. 75% of all trees have been added b
Alan Millar-2 wrote:
>
> The solution seems pretty simple to me. Add something like
> "denotation=landmark", and then you always know when you have your
> significant landmark tree. If you also want to add denotation=urban
> on other trees, that's good also.
>
> If you find a tree witho
Additionally:
If you know, that the trees you have added in the past are conform to
the definition as "single or significant" feel free to change that to
all trees you mapped in the past.
That should be relatively simple by fetching all trees with your
username and retagging them.
regards
P
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Seems a high number to me, but even if it was true: this means that
80% of all trees are not tagged according to what you consider the
valid definition. I think at this point we should adjust the tag
description to what is actually tagged and not what has been written
NopMap wrote:
> M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>
>> Seems a high number to me, but even if it was true: this means that
>> 80% of all trees are not tagged according to what you consider the
>> valid definition. I think at this point we should adjust the tag
>> description to what is actually tagged an
That is not true. There already is an extension tag, denotation=avenue or
denotation=urban and some people have used it when mass-mapping generic
Glad that somebody documented it properly in the Wiki right
from the start. Oh bummer, nobody did.
It was mentioned, but not documented, on the pro
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:20 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> 2010/9/6 NopMap :
> Seems a high number to me, but even if it was true: this means that
> 80% of all trees are not tagged according to what you consider the
> valid definition. I think at this point we should adjust the tag
> descriptio
2010/9/6 NopMap :
> - fix the new generic trees in the cities to use denotation=urban
> - keep the default meaning for trees without denotation as landmarks,
> compatible with existing definition
as you seem to insist I propose to go voting for this. I just don't
see the point in adding additiona
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> Seems a high number to me, but even if it was true: this means that
> 80% of all trees are not tagged according to what you consider the
> valid definition. I think at this point we should adjust the tag
> description to what is actually tagged and not what has bee
2010/9/6 NopMap :
>> Are you seriously pretending that all those are mapped according to
>> your interpretation of the wiki? My guess is that the ones you would
>> think that fit into this definition are less then 1%.
> No. I say that we don't know how many of them have been used that way - but
> I
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2010/9/6 NopMap :
>> The definition has been unchanged since 2006. The tag has been used
>> 372,969
>> times (tagstat).
>
> Are you seriously pretending that all those are mapped according to
> your interpretation of the wiki? My guess is that the ones you would
>
2010/9/6 NopMap :
> The definition has been unchanged since 2006. The tag has been used 372,969
> times (tagstat).
Are you seriously pretending that all those are mapped according to
your interpretation of the wiki? My guess is that the ones you would
think that fit into this definition are less
On 6 September 2010 08:41, NopMap wrote:
> Usually, trees are not rendered or not rendered prominently. I develop a
> hiking map in which landmark trees are rendered more prominently with a
> small tree icon. From my experience, outside of cities there are many
> landmark trees that have been map
To describe the problem more fully:
The definition of natural=tree in the Wiki is "lone or significant tree".
This corresponds to the way trees are handled in topographic maps. If it is
a landmark or of some significance, it is noted in the map. All other trees
are collected as wooded area.
The
2010/9/6 Serge Wroclawski :
>> In practice, it seems unlikely that any one will try to tag every tree in a
>> forest
> It's entirely possible to map every tree in a city.
I agree to both of you. For subtagging I think that there is already
some documentation in the wiki (not all are already on th
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 8:08 PM, John F. Eldredge wrote:
> In practice, it seems unlikely that any one will try to tag every tree in a
> forest
It's entirely possible to map every tree in a city. Someone else
mentioned Girona, I'll mention that Washington, DC's data contains
trees and could be im
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:14 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Many people are tagging single trees, and usually use natural=tree for
> this. Now there are some voices on the German ML that say,
> natural=tree is reserved for "special" trees, and can therefore not be
> used for "ordinary" trees.
>
doesn't seem
likely to be a major problem in the long run.
---Original Email---
Subject :[Tagging] tagging single trees
>From :mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com
Date :Sun Sep 05 17:14:44 America/Chicago 2010
Many people are tagging single trees, and usually use natural=tree for
t
Many people are tagging single trees, and usually use natural=tree for
this. Now there are some voices on the German ML that say,
natural=tree is reserved for "special" trees, and can therefore not be
used for "ordinary" trees.
I changed the wiki according to what I perceive actual usage, by
chang
65 matches
Mail list logo
