<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 03/03/2011 16:30, Tom Chance wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTikm9SFGCedq71dXFBNv-V9edYy6wKbDBrJD=V96@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
That's elegant from a logical and maintenance point of view,
but adds hurdles for the data user.<br>
<br>
For example, it would mean you couldn't just download OSM data
and stick it into OpenLayers for the public like so:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://tomchance.dev.openstreetmap.org/trees.html">http://tomchance.dev.openstreetmap.org/trees.html</a><br>
<br>
A data user would need the skills to use the reference source
to add that into the interface or merged dataset. By
comparison, the experienced data maintainer could simply use
JOSM and XAPI (if it actually worked these days) to fix the
error quite easily.<br>
<br>
I'm not sure this solution of adding the genus+species+common
name+produce data to every tree is Quite Right, but in my view
it's preferable as a botanical name isn't very meaningful to
the average data user.<br>
<br>
Tom <br>
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://tom.acrewoods.net">http://tom.acrewoods.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://twitter.com/tom_chance">http://twitter.com/tom_chance</a><br>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org">Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
I must completely agree with Tom on this. (When has OSM cared about
3NF?).<br>
<br>
Anyone who has used an old list of moths or butterflies has to spend
an age working out what the current scientific name is, whereas if
the list had been of the form Red Admiral <i>Vanessa atalanta </i>it
would have been easy. Scientific names change more frequently than
common ones, although even a common bird like <i>Prunella modularis</i>
may be known as Hedge Sparrow, Dunnock or Hedge Accentor. Plants may
be a bit less susceptible to wholescale taxonomic change than
animals and fungi, but it happens nonetheless (see wikipedia on the
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platanus_%C3%97_acerifolia">London
Plane</a>), and you may be surprised to learn that German
botanists don't recognise the Crack Willow designation of British
botanists.<br>
<br>
Secondly it is important that people can contribute what they know
about a tree, so provision for adding a tree just with a common name
is useful.<br>
<br>
My third point is that I would be hesitant about using wikipedia for
plant names (e.g., <i>Tilia platyphyllos</i> is pretty much known
in UK as Large-leaved Lime). My first choice would be the Botanical
Society of the British Isles plant list, available on their website,
or that on the Wild Flower Societies <a
href="http://www.thewildflowersociety.com/wfs_list_of_all_plants/guide_to_pages.htm">webpage</a>.
The <a href="http://www.eol.org/">Encylopedia of Life</a> is
probably a better source than Wikipedia for plants not covered by
the first two lists. Other sources for latin names are <a
href="http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/FE/fe.html">Flora Europaea</a>,
possibly the Web of Life, and in desperation <a
href="http://www.ipni.org/">IPNI</a>. I've added a few names to
the list, but have left row 383 well alone.<br>
<br>
Jerry<br>
</body>
</html>