NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de 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
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
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 trees
From
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
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
On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 14:19:00 +
John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com 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,
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:54 PM, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de 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.
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.
- Original Message -
From: NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de
To: Tagging@openstreetmap.org
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
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 7:13 AM, David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net 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,
discussion, strategy and related tools tagging@openstreetmap.org
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 revi...@pacific-rim.net
wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something in this discussion, but what exactly is so
Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com
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
.
---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 emac...@gmail.com
wrote:
Maybe you missed the beginning of this painful thread.
Thank you for this summary.
I agree to your
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 from
2010/9/10 Tobias Knerr o...@tobias-knerr.de:
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,
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
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
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 do
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de 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
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 2:20 AM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote:
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 11:54 PM, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de 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
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 about a bot
Yes, you
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 5:00 PM, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de 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
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 have
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
2010/9/8 Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com:
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
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:
2010/9/7 NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de:
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
On 7 September 2010 17:08, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de 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...
___
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 import
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 2:55 PM, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de 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
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 ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote:
That is not a solution. For 4 years people
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 Garmins and others
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:11 AM, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de 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
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. And
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
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:27 AM, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de 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
2010/9/7 Anthony o...@inbox.org:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:27 AM, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de 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
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
At 2010-09-05 18:22, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 8:08 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com 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
2010/9/6 Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com:
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
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
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/9/6 NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de:
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
2010/9/6 NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de:
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
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
2010/9/6 NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de:
- 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
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:20 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2010/9/6 NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de:
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
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 and not what
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
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
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 without any
2010/9/6 NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de:
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
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
In practice, it seems unlikely that any one will try to tag every tree in a
forest, so, even if no rules are made about which trees to tag, it is likely
only to be used for trees that are memorable for their size, have historic
interest, are isolated enough to serve as landmarks, etc. So, it
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:14 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com 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
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 8:08 PM, John F. Eldredge j...@jfeldredge.com 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
55 matches
Mail list logo
