On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:20 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> wrote: > 2010/9/6 NopMap <[email protected]>:
> 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 [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
