On 6 September 2010 08:41, NopMap <ekkeh...@gmx.de> wrote: > Usually, trees are not rendered or not rendered prominently. I develop a > hiking map in which landmark trees are rendered more prominently with a > small tree icon. From my experience, outside of cities there are many > landmark trees that have been mapped according to the present definition > and > that are very useful for orientation. Where people have tagged the urban > trees properly with the additional tag "denotation=urban", they can just be > filtered away. > > Therefore it would be helpful to use the denotation tag more widely for > non-significant trees. It is fairly simple to mass select all tree nodes in > a city park and add the proper tag. > > That seems the wrong way around to me.
A lot of people will mass-import databases of trees maintained by public authorities, or randomly add individual trees where it enhances the detail of a small park or street (as I have). They are unlikely to think "these trees need extra tagging to say they are ordinary trees". On the other hand, if you are adding a tree because you think "this is a remarkable tree that could be used for navigation / has historical significance" you would be more likely to check for any extra tags. Regards, Tom -- http://tom.acrewoods.net http://twitter.com/tom_chance
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
