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 <o...@tobias-knerr.de> 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." > [...] > > 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. > > 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=residential outline within a landuse=residential, or mapping > amenity=parking_space areas within an amenity=parking. > > > If a renderer wants to cluster any trees that can be done > algorithmically. > > Writing an algorithm to reconstruct tree rows from individual tree nodes > is probably possible, but it's more complex than what OSM renderers > usually bother with – even for features that are much more significant > than tree rows. Checking whether a tree node is part of a tree_row way, > on the other hand, is far easier and only requires relatively standard > OSM tooling. So the latter seems like the more practical solution to me. > > Tobias > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
