Am 29.07.2019 um 10:44 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > sent from a phone > >> On 29. Jul 2019, at 08:13, Joseph Eisenberg <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Someone needs to check how denotation=cluster is >> actually used now days. > > this tag was introduced through an automated edit many years ago with the > reasoning that natural=tree should only be used for “special” and alone > standing trees, so that all other trees which were standing in groups had > gotten the cluster tag. Meanwhile the saner approach is to tag special trees > with additional tags and accept that natural=tree has no other implications > than “a tree”. IMHO it is ok to see denotation=cluster as deprecated.
That is a mischaracterisation of what actually happened. Originally (pre-mass imports of trees) natural=tree was intended only for notable trees (as landmarks, or for other reasons) and there was only a small number of them in the data. The mass-imports without further qualification lost that semantic information, which led to a longer conflict trying to undo the damage (which was already hopeless IMHO). The correct approach would have been to address the problem before the imports. Unluckily, not only, but particularly here, it is clear that the lessons from this specific disaster have not been learnt. Simon > Cheers Martin > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
