jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
Thu Nov 13 01:49:12 UTC 2014
Trust me on this but I don't think these particular ones are. It's in one
of the more built up areas and some trees have been mapped but less than a
fifth of the trees in the tile have been mapped and the ones that have been
seem fairly random.
Looking at the other items mapped I suspect they prefer to map water and
On 12 November 2014 20:18, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds at gmail.com> wrote:
> One reason is if the tree is a significant landmark.
> Tom Taylor
> 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
>>> 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
> HOT mailing list
> HOT at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the HOT