It's an existing issue.
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1753
Vr gr Peter Elderson
Op di 12 feb. 2019 om 12:36 schreef Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>:
> > Better rendering of tree_row on OSM Carto
>
> Please go to http://github.com/gravitystorm/openstree
> Better rendering of tree_row on OSM Carto
Please go to http://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/new
and explain the problems with the current rendering, then we can discuss
how to fix it.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 6:43 PM Peter Elderson wrote:
> Netherlands have very extensive u
Netherlands have very extensive use of tree rows. Lets take the roads.
Roads in our polders are almost always lined with tree rows, exept for the
many crossings, roundabouts, tunnels, bridges etcetera. These roads stretch
many kilometers. The lining is often not singular, but lines each direction
s
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 15:55:50 +0200
Tomas Straupis wrote:
> Two things to add:
> 1. At least in Lithuania cartographic (topographic) "tree row" is
> defined as "a row of trees groing alongside a road or railway". That
> is random trees somewhere in a field do not become a "tree row" even
> if
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 07:28, Paul Allen wrote:
> Or very tall grass.
>
All we need is Warin's lawn mower ^ - that'll fix 'em! :-)
Thanks
Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 20:54, Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> Yep, you see similar rows quite frequently that have been planted like
> that, usually to form a wind break.
>
So they're not by the side of a road and they're not ornamental. That
means that, although they
are trees and arranged in a
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 00:26, Ture Pålsson wrote:
> However, I believe tree rows sometimes appear on their own. For example,
> the tree row in this
> picture (which was in the side bar of the Wiki for natural=tree_row) looks
> like it is not lining anything in particular:
>
Yep, you see similar
2019-02-11, pr, 16:26 Ture Pålsson rašė:
> That possiblity already exists, as tree_lined=*. However, I believe tree
> rows sometimes appear on their own. For example, the tree row in this
> picture (which was in the side bar of the Wiki for natural=tree_row)
> looks like it is not lining anything i
2019-02-11 14:55 skrev Tomas Straupis:
2019-02-11, pr, 11:29 Ture Pålsson rašė:
[ ... ]
2. If (1) is true in other countries, maybe "tree_row" should be an
attribute of a road/railroad? Say
highway=residential+tree_row=left|right|both. This way it would be
much more convenient to create cart
2019-02-11, pr, 11:29 Ture Pålsson rašė:
> As someone who tries to render smallish-scale (typcally 1:25000 or
> 1:5) maps from OSM data, I am always slightly annoyed when someone
> states that something does not need to be mapped bacuse it can be
> inferred algorithmically from other data, with
2019-02-09 15:23 skrev Tom Pfeifer:
If a renderer wants to cluster any trees that can be done
algorithmically.
As someone who tries to render smallish-scale (typcally 1:25000 or
1:5) maps from OSM data, I am always slightly annoyed when someone
states that something does not need to be m
On 11/02/19 11:57, Paul Allen wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 00:35, Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 11. Feb 2019, at 01:24, Paul Allen mailto:pla16...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Many of them are more
than just hedges.
there are different kind of hedg
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 00:35, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> On 11. Feb 2019, at 01:24, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Many of them are more
> than just hedges.
>
>
> there are different kind of hedges, trees may occur within hedges
>
So far, so good.
>
>
> http://www.gartencenter-altenberge.de/wp-co
sent from a phone
> On 11. Feb 2019, at 01:33, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> & at what level does a hedge become a tree row, & vice versa? :-)
>
> https://www.google.com/maps/@-28.0839404,153.4133042,3a,75y,78.53h,84.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skH3zHyokMiuFfbFxTGAezQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
>
this
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 10:26, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 00:07, Martin Koppenhoefer
> wrote:
>
>> barrier=hedge
>> I would not tag these as tree rows.
>>
>
> Check the shadows. Some of those are hedges. Some of those are hedges
> with occasional
> trees. And some are hedge
sent from a phone
> On 11. Feb 2019, at 01:24, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Many of them are more
> than just hedges.
there are different kind of hedges, trees may occur within hedges
http://www.gartencenter-altenberge.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Buxus2028Buchsbaumhecke2920niedrig20an20Beet201
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 00:07, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
>
> > On 11. Feb 2019, at 01:02, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > All very neat and planned. Most of what I see around here are much
> closer together. Sort of like
> > overgrown hedges. Which they might well be.
>
>
> barrier=hedge
> I woul
sent from a phone
> On 11. Feb 2019, at 01:02, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> All very neat and planned. Most of what I see around here are much closer
> together. Sort of like
> overgrown hedges. Which they might well be.
barrier=hedge
I would not tag these as tree rows.
Cheers, Martin
_
I’d recommend using the tree row tag alone in rural areas. A tree row is
very similar to a hedge, though it is usually not a barrier. I hope we are
not going to start mapping only rye individual shrubs that make up a hedge,
or the individual trees that make up a woodland.
If you do add the individ
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 23:47, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> some random examples:
>
All very neat and planned. Most of what I see around here are much closer
together. Sort of like
overgrown hedges. Which they might well be. But they're very common, so i
think it's deliberate,
possibly as a
sorry for the many posts, but here is a real life example with many tree rows
of 3 trees:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/620795490#map=19/52.52921/13.37787&layers=D
I know the location and agree with the tagging, but for me individual trees
could be added as well (you might want to add speci
sent from a phone
> On 10. Feb 2019, at 23:10, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>
> As said before, I could call any two trees a "row", e.g. each pair of trees
> on the opposite sides of the road.
this is up to the mapper. In architecture, a tree row is seen as a linear
space, it structures land in a “s
sent from a phone
> On 10. Feb 2019, at 23:10, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>
> Thus it is more comparable to the addr:interpolation which we use before all
> addr:housenumber are mapped individually. Once we have achieved that, the
> interpolation line becomes obsolete.
I believe this is disputable
sent from a phone
> On 10. Feb 2019, at 23:10, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>
> The tree_row is then unverifiable, as there is no definition where it begins
> and where it ends.
Seems easy: starts at the first tree (or even tree stump if you like) and ends
at the last tree of the row. I would expect
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019 at 17:10, Tom Pfeifer 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 on
On 10.02.2019 09:53, Markus wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 20:41, Paul Allen wrote:
[...] I see individual trees
and tree rows as alternative ways of dealing with things and plotting
individual trees on a
tree row seems bizarre (a row of individual trees is obviously a tree row,
there's no nee
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 20:41, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> [...] I see individual trees
> and tree rows as alternative ways of dealing with things and plotting
> individual trees on a
> tree row seems bizarre (a row of individual trees is obviously a tree row,
> there's no need to
> map both at the same
> On 9. Feb 2019, at 22:46, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> > On 9. Feb 2019, at 15:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> >
> > IMHO this violates the one object - one OSM element principle.
>
>
> IMHO it doesn’t. One tag describes a tree row, the other individual trees. It
> doesn’t matter that it is the
sent from a phone
> On 9. Feb 2019, at 15:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>
> IMHO this violates the one object - one OSM element principle.
IMHO it doesn’t. One tag describes a tree row, the other individual trees. It
doesn’t matter that it is the same trees.
Mapping a residential area doesn’t prev
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 19:19, John Sturdy wrote:
> I think it's also comparable to mapping the pylons of a power line and the
> line itself.
>
I would say otherwise. Power lines are strung between pylons. Often, the
only clue the
line is there is the pylons. Any time the line changes direction
On 09.02.2019 20:15, Tobias Knerr wrote:
Because the two feature types exist at different levels of abstraction
(a tree is *part* of a tree row), I do not see this as a violation of
one feature, one element.
Instead, I consider it comparable to mapping building:part areas within
a building=resid
I think it's also comparable to mapping the pylons of a power line and the
line itself.
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 7:16 PM Tobias Knerr wrote:
> On 09.02.19 15:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> > "Tree rows ... This approach can also be combined with individually
> > mapped trees for further details."
> [..
On 09.02.19 15:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> "Tree rows ... This approach can also be combined with individually
> mapped trees for further details."
[...]
> IMHO this violates the one object - one OSM element principle. Either I
> choose the coarser approach to map a way for the row, or I refine it to
On 2019-02-09 15:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> On the natural=tree page I stumbled over the phrase:
>
> "Tree rows ... This approach can also be combined with individually mapped
> trees for further details."
>
> On natural=tree_row I found it was part of the 2010 proposal which said:
> "if individu
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 09:23, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> IMHO this violates the one object - one OSM element principle. Either I
> choose the coarser approach
> to map a way for the row, or I refine it to individual trees, but should not
> use the row anymore.
Hello,
My interpretation would be that a
On the natural=tree page I stumbled over the phrase:
"Tree rows ... This approach can also be combined with individually mapped trees for
further details."
On natural=tree_row I found it was part of the 2010 proposal which said:
"if individual trees in a tree row are mapped, the tree nodes shou
36 matches
Mail list logo
