On Saturday 05 May 2018, Peter Elderson wrote: > [...] > > The key is proposed as part of a rendering proposal for > *natural=tree_row*, [...] > > However, the proposed usage is explicitly non-exact: [...]
As a general rule a good tag or tagging proposal should be mapper oriented, it should be designed to allow mappers to document verifiable aspects of the observable geography in an efficient, precise and non-ambiguous way. Why don't we tag spacing=* on a power=line instead of tagging every pole with power=pole? Because if we have the information and the time as a mapper to verifiably determine this we can normally also go ahead and map the poles anyway which makes the data much more meaningful and valuable in general. And because actually measuring the spacing between the poles, in particular if it varies, is practically harder than just mapping the positions of the poles. If i try to ignore the rendering related aspects of your proposal it boils down to being deliberately non-exact. Why would a mapper want to do that? If i want to map a tree row in a quick and dirty way i draw a way and tag it natural=tree_row. If i want to map it in more detail i map and tag the individual trees. I don't see tagging spacing=* as an intermediate solution here. If as a style developer you want to render tree rows styled depending on the tree density the way to go would IMO be to encourage mappers to map individual trees (which current documentation of natural=tree_row considers valid when done in addition) and determine the spacing from these. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
