<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Please, just forget about trees (<i>and the fact that they
obviously grow...</i>): trees have only been the "<i>casus belli</i>",
the case for which we asked ourselves how "Estimated values for
height" (<i>the topic of this thread...</i>) should be tagged.<br>
</p>
<p>The real question, I think, is if it is correct to have all those
est_* keys or there could be a better way to indicate the accuracy
of a measure.</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Sergio</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-11-12 11:01, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABPTjTCube41xOzGkWY5sD-O+SYQ-UqU4ORPUYhiOY9UgfDD5g@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div>I believe there is way too much fuzz about this, almost
every number in OSM is estimated, the height of a tree cannot
be measured to the mm even with the most precise instruments
(and even if you could, it would be outdated within the same
day). Just add the height.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Martin<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>