On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 2:55 PM, NopMap <ekkeh...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > That is not a solution. For 4 years people have done valid tagging, using > the definition in the wiki for significant trees. If you change the meaning, > no denotation=landmark will magically appear there, so the information gets > lost.
As Richard points out, the information is already lost due to ambiguity. > I have done a statistical analysis of the distribution of tree nodes in > Germany. The result indicates that 4585 trees are actually single trees. > (They don't have another tree within 50m). That makes about 15.8 %. Assuming > the same rate globally, you'd throw away the information for about 59000 > nodes that actually describe a lone and significant tree. That's just Germany. What about the rest of the world? >From here on, in other mails, you use the German numbers as if they're the only numbers. ... It doesn't seem anyone's mind is being changed at this point, so I'd like to second Martin's suggestion that we move to the voting phase. - Serge _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
