On 10.02.2019 09:53, Markus wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 20:41, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> 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 time).
That's my opinion too.
Thanks Paul, Markus, that's what I mean.
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 only exists as an
abstraction/simplification/interpolation of a number of not-yet-mapped trees.
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.
So, once the trees are mapped individually, we have all the information we need. The tree_row is
then unverifiable, as there is no definition where it begins and where it ends. As said before, I
could call any two trees a "row", e.g. each pair of trees on the opposite sides of the road. Or, I
could say I need a new row once a tree is missing in some equidistant spacing, or I could ignore
missing trees.
tom
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
