2010/9/9 NopMap <ekkeh...@gmx.de>:
> 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 "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.
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?
cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
