On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 17:10, Tom Pfeifer <t.pfei...@computer.org> wrote: > In a related discussion I have heard the argument that, after mapping the > individual trees, "if we > delete the tree_row way, we lose the information that they are part of a tree > row." > > The problem with that argument is that a tree_row only exists as an > abstraction/simplification/interpolation of a number of not-yet-mapped trees.
Likely not all things currently mapped as tree_row are distinctive "tree rows". But there do exist tree rows which are distinctly noticeable: consisting of a row of trees that were mostly planted at the same time, and so are roughly same height, and are either same species or are of a designed variety. This is described in Wikipedia as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avenue_(landscape) Certainly we could tag each of the trees with its species, height, planting date, etc, and have data consumers infer that they form an avenue / tree row. Or make a man_made=avenue tag. Or reuse the natural=tree_row tag for simplicity? --Jarek _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
