Yes, that tag sounds like it should be removed.
--
John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot
drive out hate; only love can do that." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
On March 2, 2015 2:55:29 PM moltonel 3x Combo <molto...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 02/03/2015, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He was interested in
> "special" trees and was asuming that trees close to other trees were less
> "special" (something I don't agree with per se, but in practice might have
> worked back then, because the mappers mapping "special trees" were
> typically mapping only those special trees, hence there was less
> probability of other trees _mapped_ nearby, even if there were actual trees
> in the real world).
Ok, that's a reasonable intent. But not a reasonable method, because
the heuristic is flawed, because "storing the result of an osm query
in osm data" is bad practice, and because a list of "normal" trees is
insanely harder to maintain than a list of "special" trees.
So there's not much to redeem the tag AFAICS. I'm happy to see it
deleted from objects, surely starting with that one import and then
double-checking the other changesets.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
