In the case you showed on Mapillary, I think I would leave a gap in between two rows.
In general, I think the reason for using tree_row is just a matter of mapping speed and what you can see: on an aerial picture, you can easily make out a tree row, but it is harder to pin-point the exact location of the trees. There's also the argument that we tend to only map individual trees if they are "significant". Of course what makes a tree significant is up to mapper discretion. If you're looking for a wider range of opinions, do ask the same question in the tagging mailing list. I've come to kind of enjoy the merry-go-round discussions there, so I'm willing to ask for you and report here :) 2017-02-02 12:08 GMT+01:00 Karel Adams <[email protected]>: > Not hindered by any expertise or authority, I feel tempted to reply: if, > in full foliage, they cast one continuous shadow, then it is a row; if not, > they are separate trees. > > KA > > On 02/02/17 10:42, Pieter Brusselman wrote: > > > Hi, > > When do you decide that trees are closed enough into a line to map them as > a tree_row or just map them as individual trees? > > for example: https://www.mapillary.com/app/?lat=51.07764176804454&lng=3. > 5352408793126244&z=17&focus=photo&pKey=EmDXwpiZawxLmLwO574imw > > > Grtz, > Pieter > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing > [email protected]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-be mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be > > -- Joost Schouppe OpenStreetMap <http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/joost%20schouppe/> | Twitter <https://twitter.com/joostjakob> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/pub/joost-schouppe/48/939/603> | Meetup <http://www.meetup.com/OpenStreetMap-Belgium/members/97979802/>
_______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
