Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 thread and discover an unknwon tag in the area they work. It usually consider as a bad thing in OSM to change things without real consensus (long discussion and a majority of the people that participate to the discussion agree) and without any documentation. If everybody act like you did, OSM would become a big mess. On the tree discussion. Yes tree tag was starting for remarkable tree but now the real use is for tree. Of course users that tag remarkable tree would see there work disolve by this, but it's allready done. Adding cluster with a bot is not a good option, 2 remarkable tree can be close (i add example here in my town). We have to discuss and found a reasonable option. Original single tree tag was probably an error, because as it has been said, we usually tag remarkable things with a remarkable tag not a common one... -- Pierre-Alain Dorange Why don't i run a bot that change cluster to bazinga, i prefer this word ? (isarcasm) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 followed consistently - if at all - by mappers. Either resolution will therefore impose a new unambiguous definition on a large proportion of nodes entered by many mappers. This is unavoidable. The only course of action is to propose one or more unambiguous definitions on the wiki, explaining their retroactive effect, and to put those to a vote. Further emails arguing one way.or another will clearly fail to bring about any resolution. Regards, Tom On 11 Sep 2010 08:51, Pierre-Alain Dorange pdora...@mac.com wrote: 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 thread and discover an unknwon tag in the area they work. It usually consider as a bad thing in OSM to change things without real consensus (long discussion and a majority of the people that participate to the discussion agree) and without any documentation. If everybody act like you did, OSM would become a big mess. On the tree discussion. Yes tree tag was starting for remarkable tree but now the real use is for tree. Of course users that tag remarkable tree would see there work disolve by this, but it's allready done. Adding cluster with a bot is not a good option, 2 remarkable tree can be close (i add example here in my town). We have to discuss and found a reasonable option. Original single tree tag was probably an error, because as it has been said, we usually tag remarkable things with a remarkable tag not a common one... -- Pierre-Alain Dorange Why don't i run a bot that change cluster to bazinga, i prefer this word ? (isarcasm) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org htt... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 tree for some distance can be a factor, but it isn't the 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 trees From :mailto:pdora...@mac.com Date :Sat Sep 11 02:50:59 America/Chicago 2010 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 thread and discover an unknwon tag in the area they work. It usually consider as a bad thing in OSM to change things without real consensus (long discussion and a majority of the people that participate to the discussion agree) and without any documentation. If everybody act like you did, OSM would become a big mess. On the tree discussion. Yes tree tag was starting for remarkable tree but now the real use is for tree. Of course users that tag remarkable tree would see there work disolve by this, but it's allready done. Adding cluster with a bot is not a good option, 2 remarkable tree can be close (i add example here in my town). We have to discuss and found a reasonable option. Original single tree tag was probably an error, because as it has been said, we usually tag remarkable things with a remarkable tag not a common one... -- Pierre-Alain Dorange Why don't i run a bot that change cluster to bazinga, i prefer this word ? (isarcasm) ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 yes, and it is definitely a tree. You have added a denotation=cluster. Apart from the fact that denotation is not a word I'd use, why does cluster come into it? I added a tree to OSM. Nearby is another object, that also is a tree. They were planted there to provide apples to the allotment holders. Are they an orchard? No. Are they a wood, or a copse? No. Is the fact that they are close together relevant? No. If I have the slightest interest in their proximity to each other can I discern that from the geo-data? Yes. Of course when you visited the site to see the trees you would have been able to see all this, but wait - you didn't visit? You just arbitrarily added tags to objects you've never visited? Tags that don't make sense and other people have asked you to stop adding? How rude. 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. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 of the discussion suggests that reverting the changeset(s?) is in order. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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, being the only tree for some distance can be a factor, but it isn't the 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. I have known very few notable trees. As a child there was one which was known as the place where Elizabeth I was sitting when she was told she was Queen. There was one in Western Queensland known as the birthplace of the Labour Party. They are very special places which need noting. Then there are single trees which make landmarks on a route. All other trees are normal (to my way of thinking about the world) and don't need any additional notes. They may even be standalone trees which are more than x metres from anything else. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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. And why have you added the fixme= tag when you've already added a denotation=? Cheers Dave F. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
- 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 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 points for orientation. Why don't you simply tag the landmark trees as landmarks and keep the trees being trees? WIll we have all trees that have at least another tree within 50 metres as cluster in our database in the future, i.e. thousands or even millions of them? 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. 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? Many OSM features stand alone, but there has not in the past been a need to make any special notice of this, or tag their proximity to the same features nearby. David And it is a heuristic. Of course it is possible that there may be special cases where it is not correct. But if you look at the massive heaps of trees they are whole citys mass imported from some data source without further tagging, probably none of them are landmarks. So I am content if it is only 99% correct. If you want to oppose this approach, please show me a few 100 examples where it went awry. A debate only makes sense if the debate does not take more time than fixing the exceptions. And it does not make sense at all if the problems are only theoretical. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5517044.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
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 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 beginning of this painful thread. The issue is this (and I'll try to be as neutral as possible): * Nop points out that the wiki definition of trees says a lone tree and interprets this as a prominent tree (a landmark, etc.). * He then concludes that trees in OSM which are not prominent should be tagged to indicate that. * Me, Martin and others say that the wiki definition is wrong, that people aren't using it, that it's ignored in imports, etc. and landmark trees are the special ones and should be retagged. * Nop says that this is unfair because he's already been doing the right thing (ie following the WIki guidelines) and so it's everyone else that's wrong. * Nop then points out stats from Germany which he says support his point. I think I understand where Nop is coming from. This doesn't appear to be a tagging issue as much as it is about doing the right thing. I think he feels that he and others who followed the Wiki definition are being punished by needing to retag their data. The position of the rest of us is that: 1) We don't tag normal things as normal, we tag special things as special. 2) The wiki is, more or less, supposed to reflect actual usage. (I'll elaborate more on this point later on in the mail) 3) The definition makes common sense if it's any tree, rather than this complex definition of a special tree, having to do with space or landmark, or any of that. Now, I want to also bring to the table an extract I did this week of all the trees in the world: http://www.emacsen.net/trees.osm.gz People, feel free to download and examine the trees. To elaborate on #2: This is a big difference between languages. In French, for example, there's a society which determines what can be considered official French. In English, it's quite different, especially in the US. Dictionaries document words in their current usage. They're descriptive rather than prescriptive, but of course all schoolteachers teach children to look words up in the dictionary and use the words properly. That is the constant tension that exists when you define terms, and is similarly the tension that exists in our wiki regarding definitions of features. Are we describing tags in OSM as they're used, or explaining how to use the tags? A bit of both, I'd say. In this case, it's clear to me there's a disconnect between the actual usage and the wiki definition, so it's the wiki which should change. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
Serge Thank you for such a very helpful and clear summary. I had tried to follow from the start of the thread, but I couldn't see through it with the clarity you have managed. See some of my points below. - Original Message - From: Serge Wroclawski emac...@gmail.com To: Tag 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 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 beginning of this painful thread. The issue is this (and I'll try to be as neutral as possible): * Nop points out that the wiki definition of trees says a lone tree and interprets this as a prominent tree (a landmark, etc.). So its all down to individual interpretation of lone and significant. As the wiki has no definition that lone means a tree further away than X metres from another tree, or significant because of X, Y, or Z, then surely it is down to individual mappers to mark a node and tag it a natural=tree based on how lone or significant it appears to them. Therefore in the absence of any specific guidance on the wiki, if someone has marked a node as natural=tree, and a tree does indeed exist at the location, then the tagging is not wrong (IMHO). * He then concludes that trees in OSM which are not prominent should be tagged to indicate that. Well the wiki does say lone OR significant. By virtue of the or in the definition, lone trees which are not significant should simply be tagged as natural=tree. If extra information is needed to be tagged, such as why it is significant, then presuambly this should be added.. * Me, Martin and others say that the wiki definition is wrong, that people aren't using it, that it's ignored in imports, etc. and landmark trees are the special ones and should be retagged. I wouldn't say wrong, see my point above, but perhaps the wiki does need expanding a bit. * Nop says that this is unfair because he's already been doing the right thing (ie following the WIki guidelines) and so it's everyone else that's wrong. * Nop then points out stats from Germany which he says support his point. I think I understand where Nop is coming from. This doesn't appear to be a tagging issue as much as it is about doing the right thing. I think he feels that he and others who followed the Wiki definition are being punished by needing to retag their data. The position of the rest of us is that: 1) We don't tag normal things as normal, we tag special things as special. 2) The wiki is, more or less, supposed to reflect actual usage. (I'll elaborate more on this point later on in the mail) 3) The definition makes common sense if it's any tree, rather than this complex definition of a special tree, having to do with space or landmark, or any of that. Now, I want to also bring to the table an extract I did this week of all the trees in the world: http://www.emacsen.net/trees.osm.gz People, feel free to download and examine the trees. To elaborate on #2: This is a big difference between languages. In French, for example, there's a society which determines what can be considered official French. In English, it's quite different, especially in the US. Dictionaries document words in their current usage. They're descriptive rather than prescriptive, but of course all schoolteachers teach children to look words up in the dictionary and use the words properly. That is the constant tension that exists when you define terms, and is similarly the tension that exists in our wiki regarding definitions of features. Are we describing tags in OSM as they're used, or explaining how to use the tags? A bit of both, I'd say. In this case, it's clear to me there's a disconnect between the actual usage and the wiki definition, so it's the wiki which should change. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 his the bot algorithm an example : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/750276075/history Perhaps i've miss something but i haven't see a discussion about a bot -- Pierre-Alain Dorange ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 a cluster of trees. ---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 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 algorithm an example : http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/750276075/history Perhaps i've miss something but i haven't see a discussion about a bot -- Pierre-Alain Dorange ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 a cluster of trees. The wiki only says this since Nop added that tag to the Tag:natural=tree page today.[1] From the information available to me, it seems as if the tag was invented and mass tagged (using a script) by the same person, in the same day, without even an attempt to reach consensus that this mass edit should be performed. 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. Tobias Knerr [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=DE%3ATag%3Anatural%3Dtreeaction=historysubmitdiff=530483oldid=529909 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Anatural%3Dtreeaction=historysubmitdiff=530482oldid=528386 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 Wroclawski-2 wrote: * Nop says that this is unfair because he's already been doing the right thing (ie following the WIki guidelines) and so it's everyone else that's wrong. Not quite. I have added only a few trees myself. I say this is destructive as about 2400 Mappers appear to have been doing the right thing while 75% of the bad trees are from only 3 mass imports. Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote: * Nop then points out stats from Germany which he says support his point. ...as well as global stats by somebody else which show roughly the same. Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote: I think I understand where Nop is coming from. This doesn't appear to be a tagging issue as much as it is about doing the right thing. I think he feels that he and others who followed the Wiki definition are being punished by needing to retag their data. Somewhat like that. I think nullifying 4 years of work by 2400 people who are not here to voice their opinion is thoughtless, unfriendly, destructive - anything but an adequate solution. I am game for any solution that does not destroy existing data. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5519806.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 prominent tree. the problem is that lone doesn't really imply that, at least not in the version of english i'm familiar with. Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote: * Nop says that this is unfair because he's already been doing the right thing (ie following the WIki guidelines) and so it's everyone else that's wrong. Not quite. I have added only a few trees myself. I say this is destructive as about 2400 Mappers appear to have been doing the right thing while 75% of the bad trees are from only 3 mass imports. why are you so sure that ~2400 mappers have been doing it that way? did you poll them or something? Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote: I think I understand where Nop is coming from. This doesn't appear to be a tagging issue as much as it is about doing the right thing. I think he feels that he and others who followed the Wiki definition are being punished by needing to retag their data. Somewhat like that. I think nullifying 4 years of work by 2400 people who are not here to voice their opinion is thoughtless, unfriendly, destructive - anything but an adequate solution. once again, how do we really know anything about those 2400 mappers and their work? it's not like they tagged all those trees with why they're important or anything like that. this is why i maintain that we have already effectively lost information. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 this analysis and add tags to the landmark trees? German ML: Wolfgang-4: Aber aus deinen Daten sollte es doch eigentlich möglich sein, die einmal so erkannten und damit geretteten Bäume per bot mit einem entsprechenden Tag zu versehen, 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, just ignore it. This being OSM, surely there would be complaints. It is very funny that they even come from one of the very people who suggested it in the first place. :-) But I can live much better with being the bad guy anyway after investing quite some work to fix at least some of the ambiguity than with thoughtlessly destroying 4 years of previous work by other people. 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 information - go ahead and let the edit war commence. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5519927.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 don't like it, just ignore it. This being OSM, surely there would be complaints. It is very funny that they even come from one of the very people who suggested it in the first place. :-) Umm, first of all, you did the opposite of what was suggested. Secondly, my suggestion was mainly sarcastic. Thirdly, I'm not complaining. I find this whole thing rather humorous. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 with denotation=cluster next. The more facts, the better. For the sarcasm impaired: this above suggestion is an example of it. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
Actually, I did not write the statement quoted below. I posted a reply to Pierre-Alain Dorange, who had made the quoted statement. I explained to Pierre-Alain that the bot was reportedly tagging any tree within 50 meters of any other tree as a cluster. Incidentally, doing so is the opposite 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 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 this analysis and add tags to the landmark trees? German ML: Wolfgang-4: Aber aus deinen Daten sollte es doch eigentlich möglich sein, die einmal so erkannten und damit geretteten Bäume per bot mit einem entsprechenden Tag zu versehen, 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, just ignore it. This being OSM, surely there would be complaints. It is very funny that they even come from one of the very people who suggested it in the first place. :-) But I can live much better with being the bad guy anyway after investing quite some work to fix at least some of the ambiguity than with thoughtlessly destroying 4 years of previous work by other people. 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 information - go ahead and let the edit war commence. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5519927.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 nodes of information - go ahead and let the edit war commence. I'm a bit frustrated. We're having what I think of as a civil discussion, and several of us have asked that we bring forth the evidence and let the community vote, and each time, you've not gone forth. Then, while you talk about the Wiki as an authoritative source, you've changed the wiki, and you've also been running what appears to be a bot against the data. And now you're declaring that you're out of the conversation. When you combine these things, the way it leaves me is with the feeling that you aren't really interested in what the rest of us have to say, that you'll do what you want and ignore the community's input. This is how edit wars are started, and I'd really feel better if you: 1) Removed your changes to the wiki that weren't voted on in the normal tagging process. 2) Revert the changes you've made that reflect the tags that you added until such time as the changes are voted on. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 marked every tree without further information that has another tree within 50m with denotation=cluster so you can tell it is not a single tree. That should be sufficient for distinguishing mass trees and solve the ambiguity. And it's not a probably, but a simple fact. For a first step, this was limited to all trees in Germany, I will extend it in a few days when I have more time. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5513391.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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-single-trees-tp5501462p5505433.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 a special way but the opposite this topic will continue to annoy and you will have continuously to complain about trees tagged the wrong way... cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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... ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 these landmark trees, ignoring all the others... So where's the problem? /al ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 lost. As Richard points out, the information is already lost due to ambiguity. 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 information for about 59000 nodes that actually describe a lone and significant tree. That's just Germany. What about the rest of the world? From here on, in other mails, you use the German numbers as if they're the only numbers. ... It doesn't seem anyone's mind is being changed at this point, so I'd like to second Martin's suggestion that we move to the voting phase. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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. If the mapper wants to convey additional information about a particular tree, this should be done with additional tags. Incidentally, urban tree does not necessarily imply no other trees nearby. For example, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, where I live, is a city of over 600,000 people. It also contains tens of thousands of trees, the vast majority of which have other trees within 50 meters, and therefore wouldn'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 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 lost. As Richard points out, the information is already lost due to ambiguity. 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 information for about 59000 nodes that actually describe a lone and significant tree. That's just Germany. What about the rest of the world? From here on, in other mails, you use the German numbers as if they're the only numbers. ... It doesn't seem anyone's mind is being changed at this point, so I'd like to second Martin's suggestion that we move to the voting phase. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 would probably only import these landmark trees, ignoring all the others... So where's the problem? Who's going to find, check and re-tag those 58000 trees? bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5506813.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 if there is a definition for a tag, undisputed and unchanged for 4 years, and people use the tag in a fitting manner, isn't it the most sensible thing to assume that they actually knew what they were doing and meant exactly what the definition says? John F. Eldredge wrote: From here on, in other mails, you use the German numbers as if they're the only numbers. They are the only numbers I have. Do you have more? John F. Eldredge wrote: It doesn't seem anyone's mind is being changed at this point, so I'd like to second Martin's suggestion that we move to the voting phase. The statistics indicate that between 76% (German evaluation by myself) and 87% (global evaluation by Fabian Schmid) of the users who entered/touched a node used it according to the current definition in the wiki. It does not make sense to vote on any change if the actual use confirms the existing state with a vast majority while the masses of nonconformant nodes come from only a very small number of users. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5506870.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 definition is changed. This is an assumption in lieu of better numbers. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5506883.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 the wiki definition and would loose their meaning if the definition is changed. Can't that analysis be expanded to the world, and the trees retagged? ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 as landmark trees according to the wiki definition and would loose their meaning if the definition is changed. Can't that analysis be expanded to the world, and the trees retagged? can't you do this analysis and add tags to the landmark trees? Or isn't that possible because the numbers are just guesses, and nobody can tell if a single tree is significant or not, if it isn't checked? Is a single apple tree in my garden significant? Are all the non-significant trees lone, just because nobody mapped another tree nearby, and at last (really): how do you mark trees that are significant AND lone? Your numbers are flawed because you are just checking lone tree, not if it is at the same time not significant. What is the purpose of tagging significant or lone trees the same? How do you tag urban trees that are significant? The current definition in the wiki is broken. It is broken because it doesn't work, it isn't logical and it is subjective. Tag the features for which a tree is significant, and you solve all the current problems. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 additional tags in a later changeset then trees with additional tags? 4) How much trees have additional tags describing the importance, where these are added later by the original contributor of the tree node? 5) same as 4) but with different users Question 1 would be good to compare against the users who never used the more precise tags Question 2 could show users using natural=tree with knowledge about the additional tags - so probably aware of the additional tags Question 3 goes into the same direction as Question 2 Question 4 should point out specializations made later Question 5 could probably show, that adding simply a tree by one user motivates other people to add more data. regards Peter On 07.09.2010 17:24, NopMap wrote: 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 if there is a definition for a tag, undisputed and unchanged for 4 years, and people use the tag in a fitting manner, isn't it the most sensible thing to assume that they actually knew what they were doing and meant exactly what the definition says? John F. Eldredge wrote: From here on, in other mails, you use the German numbers as if they're the only numbers. They are the only numbers I have. Do you have more? John F. Eldredge wrote: It doesn't seem anyone's mind is being changed at this point, so I'd like to second Martin's suggestion that we move to the voting phase. The statistics indicate that between 76% (German evaluation by myself) and 87% (global evaluation by Fabian Schmid) of the users who entered/touched a node used it according to the current definition in the wiki. It does not make sense to vote on any change if the actual use confirms the existing state with a vast majority while the masses of nonconformant nodes come from only a very small number of users. bye Nop ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 mention that Washington, DC's data contains trees and could be imported. Another independent organization in the city also contains tree data- not just the location of the trees but the species as well as date the tree was planted. There's no reason to think that individual trees will not be mapped. Special/historical trees could be mapped tagged historic=yes This approx 50 sq mi area of Bakersfield, CA, USA contains over 41,000 trees that were imported: node[bbox=-119.15,35.29,-119.0,35.38][natural=tree]. No other descriptive info is present. -- Alan Mintz alan_mintz+...@earthlink.net ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 already on the tree-page): - species - height - circumference (of the trunk) - start_date (for the age, maybe also estimated age + note-tag) and others like landmark=yes, monument=yes have been suggested on the MLs or discussion pages. Even tourism=attraction might exist. I'd actually prefer an estimated start_date over a generic historic=yes tag. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 definition has been unchanged since 2006. The tag has been used 372,969 times (tagstat). Only recently, people have started adding every single tree along a road, in a park or even every single tree in a forest. All examples I know are from urban areas. There has been an additional tag added to the wiki denotation to further describe the specific (un)importance of the tree. 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 mapped according to the present definition and that are very useful for orientation. Where people have tagged the urban trees properly with the additional tag denotation=urban, they can just be filtered away. Therefore it would be helpful to use the denotation tag more widely for non-significant trees. It is fairly simple to mass select all tree nodes in a city park and add the proper tag. But it would be destructive to change the base meaning of a tag that has been unchanged for 4 years and used 372,969 times. It would mean a loss of information for all real landmark trees which are properly tagged according to the current definition. Basically invalidating 4 years worth of good mapping. In short: There already is a compatible extendsion of the tagging, we just need to use it. We do not need an incompatible, destructive change of meaning. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5502331.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 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 have been building and using a hiking map for 1,5 years now, rendering and observing those tree tags, and I know that a large number has been used properly. Taking into account that the wiki definition has stood for 4 years, you'd think it has seen some use. I would think that maybe 20% of the nodes are significant landmark trees. So even if your assumtion is correct, 1% means throwing away 3729 well-tagged nodes, in my expectation it would be throwing away some 75000 good nodes. I am always opposed to needlessly destroying the work of those mappers. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5502679.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 - but I have been building and using a hiking map for 1,5 years now, rendering and observing those tree tags I guess this depends on the area / availability of hires aerial imagery and completeness of the map in general. In your area this wasn't probably available, so nobody cared to map trees. years, you'd think it has seen some use. I would think that maybe 20% of the nodes are significant landmark trees. 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 there for years and nobody (well, 80%) cared for it or took it literally. Or what would be the alternative that you suggest? So even if your assumtion is correct, 1% means throwing away 3729 well-tagged nodes, in my expectation it would be throwing away some 75000 good nodes. I was at no point speaking about throwing away nodes. I would expect a special tree to be described by it's specialties, and I would never expect one simple tag like natural=tree to refer to something extraordinary and special. I am always opposed to needlessly destroying the work of those mappers. me too. cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 there for years and nobody (well, 80%) cared for it or took it literally. Or what would be the alternative that you suggest? 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 trees. This is compatible extension. Some people mass add generic trees with no further tagging, that is the problem as the trees are misinterpreted. So not all of those 80% are tagged against the definition, but an unknown part of them. The alternative is: - use natural=tree and denotation=* to distinguish trees - 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 bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5502843.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 adding additional tags for usual objects and keep one generic tag reserved for special objects. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 should adjust the tag description to what is actually tagged and not what has been written there for years and nobody (well, 80%) cared for it or took it literally. Or what would be the alternative that you suggest? +1 Sometimes the wiki and what people map just don't match up. There are other examples I could bring up of this. Fundamentally the question, whether you think it's 1% (Martin and I do) or 20%, as you do), is Do you propose 80-99% of all trees be retagged, or 1-20%? As mentioned, we already have tags to indicate prominence. A tree might be a landmark, it might be historic, etc. Things which stand out are marked as standing out. It's silly to mark something as ordinary. In this case, I think the issue of lone tree is a bit ambiguous anyway. What is a lone tree? I think of a lone tree as a single tree, probably one not in a forest. But in an urban setting, unless you're in a park, all the trees are lone trees. - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 has been written there for years and nobody (well, 80%) cared for it or took it literally. Or what would be the alternative that you suggest? 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 trees. According to tagstat, denotation is used ~2,600 times, which is less than 1% of the 372,969 trees. So maybe Martin's statement that ~80% didn't consider the wiki definition authoritative isn't true, but does ~79% didn't consider the definition authoritative really change the situation? I /do/ agree that additional tags such as denotation is a solution for the problem, though. But imo, we shouldn't rely on tagging all ordinary trees with a nothing special about this tree tag. Instead, we should tag those trees that are something special - which also allows us to indicate what's so special about that tree. If a tree doesn't have additional tags, the obvious interpretation would be that it's, well, just an ordinary tree. This is compatible extension. It's not compatible with ~79% of the existing uses according to your own estimate. It's not compatible with JOSM's presets either (they assume that natural=tree means tree, and mappers using them relied on this). And it's certainly not compatible with the intention of unsuspecting mappers who used natural=tree without looking up a definition - because the meaning seemed completely obvious to them. A failure to adapt the wiki definition to majority use by removing the lone or significant limitation would start an eternal struggle against the massive influx of trees tagged incorrectly by mappers relying on their common sense. Tobias Knerr ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 there for years and nobody (well, 80%) cared for it or took it literally. Or what would be the alternative that you suggest? 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 trees. 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 denotation, then you know you found a tree without denotation. If you want specific status, one way or the other, tag it with denotation. Don't trust the absence of a key to tell you something important. - Alan ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 Peter ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 denotation, then you know you found a tree without denotation. If you want specific status, one way or the other, tag it with denotation. Don't trust the absence of a key to tell you something important. 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 contributed them have no idea that you changed the meaning on them, so nothing will happen to fix the damage. 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 information for about 59000 nodes that actually describe a lone and significant tree. Statistics also show that the real significant trees are much older. Average change set id is 3.1M as opposed to 19.2M on the badly tagged generic trees. Your chances are much better that the mappers are still around who did the mass generic tree tagging to fix it. And as those trees are clustered in bunches of up to 2500 at a time, they can be very quickly fixed. So again, the conlusion is: Fix the new nodes, don't destroy significant information on 59000 nodes! bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5504061.html Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 away the information for about 59000 nodes that actually describe a lone and significant tree. I can't see which information you are throwing away. You can do the same analysis you did now and find, which tree has no other tree within 50m (or any other distance you define). If there is another tree, it is not a lone tree. Simple as that, you don't need a special tag for it, but you need all trees mapped. Statistics also show that the real significant trees are much older. interesting. How did you check this? Are these trees inside forests? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 contributed them have no idea that you changed the meaning on them, so nothing will happen to fix the damage. i think the situation is that the information is already lost. richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 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 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 changing lone or significant to single. Unfortunately this is disputed at least by a few people. What are your opinions on that? cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 ordinary trees. I changed the wiki according to what I perceive actual usage, by changing lone or significant to single. Unfortunately this is disputed at least by a few people. What are your opinions on that? Well you remember Girona http://osm.org/go/xU1FEbE9 Don't think all of them are special, and I know I have never tagged a special tree. -- /emj ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees
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 trees and could be imported. Another independent organization in the city also contains tree data- not just the location of the trees but the species as well as date the tree was planted. There's no reason to think that individual trees will not be mapped. Special/historical trees could be mapped tagged historic=yes - Serge ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
