> -----Original Message----- > From: Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de> > Sent: Sunday, 6 May 2018 03:37 > To: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools > <tagging@openstreetmap.org> > Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:spacing=* > > 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.
I very much see this as a valid intermediate solution. Getting an estimate of the average spacing between trees along a tree row takes seconds. Exactly locating and mapping every single tree along a long tree row can take hours. And in the majority of cases, you are probably not going to be much more exact than a tree_row with spacing would have been, given the usual size of trees and the precision you can get from GPS or not ultra-high resolution imagery. Which means that people would probably mostly draw a line, with the estimated number of nodes that there are trees, use the "distribute equally" function and tag them all as natural=tree. Congratulation, you've now used many nodes, and pretend an exactness of the data that doesn't exist, for zero additional benefit over a two node tree_row way with spacing. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
