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 individual trees in a tree row are mapped, the tree nodes should be part
> of the tree row way. Usually, however, it's not necessary to map the
> individual trees in a tree row."
>
> In the discussion this was reasoned with:
> "...connecting the trees with a way allows renderers to generalize the tree
> row into a single entity, rather than showing each tree separately"
>
> 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.
>
> If a renderer wants to cluster any trees that can be done algorithmically.
In the same way that a highway can be deduced from the constituent
nodes?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
