On 3 March 2011 16:34, Jerry Clough : SK53 on OSM <[email protected]>wrote:
> I find this an exciting development: a place where I can point to and put > pressure on other councils to make their tree databases available. My > particular interests lie with good specimen trees and relatively unusual > ones which are hosts to particular insects (e.g., Gleditsia, Holm Oak). > I'm glad others find it useful! If someone could attend to the Mapnik bug ( http://trac.openstreetmap.org/ticket/3511) I'd happily import the remaining data so people can fix errors and play with it. > 1) Overlaying individual trees on an existing closed way showing woodland > (see Peckham Rye Park). > This is really me naughtily tagging for the renderer. Zoom out and the natural=tree disappear, but the natural=wood doesn't. Many stylesheets omit trees. I've used the natural=wood area to cover the largeish area that is covered by fairly dense trees rather than odd isolated ones or spaced out rows. > > 2) Tagging the botanical name. There is little point in pushing individual > trees into OSM without this. There are three (perhaps more) schemes : > name:botanical=*, species=* and taxon=*, each with various merits and > demerits. > Interesting, I just went with the schema on the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree On getting other councils to release data, you may find a report due to be published soon by the London Assembly Environment Committee interesting. Darren Johnson, a Green member, chairs the committee that has tried to update a previous report on the state of London's trees. We've had all sorts of fun and games getting data on totals out of borough tree officers. Some of the key recommendations address releasing open data on trees and getting better at maintaining it. Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
