tom.taylor.stds at gmail.com
Thu Nov 13 01:18:45 UTC 2014
One reason is if the tree is a significant landmark.
On 12/11/2014 7:27 PM, john whelan wrote:
> I'm happy and content and they are much easier to map than buildings but I
> just wondered if there was any logic behind it other than they had grown
> tired of mapping buildings.
> Thanks John
> On 12 November 2014 19:14, Blake Girardot <bgirardot at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't think you missed anything in the Project instructions for
>> individual trees. But with the missing maps project, OSMGeoWeek and other
>> assorted welcome to mapping type events it just be someone who thought it
>> would be fun to map in a few trees. I saw a couple of those recently when
>> doing some validation.
>> So that is my guess: Someone just wanted to map in some trees for fun
>> and/or experimentation with mapping, tagging and/or rendering. As Bob Ross
>> might ask: "Who doesn't like happy little trees?"
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 6:45 PM, john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>
>>> I know they're nice but why would anyone spend time mapping trees rather
>>> than buildings in a HOT area? Or did I miss something in the tasks?
>>> Cheerio John
>>> HOT mailing list
>>> HOT at openstreetmap.org
> HOT mailing list
> HOT at openstreetmap.org
More information about the HOT