[Tagging] tagging single trees

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/9/6 NopMap <ekkehart at gmx.de>:
>> Are you seriously pretending that all those are mapped according to
>> your interpretation of the wiki? My guess is that the ones you would
>> think that fit into this definition are less then 1%.
> No. I say that we don't know how many of them have been used that way - but
> I have been building and using a hiking map for 1,5 years now, rendering and
> observing those tree tags


I guess this depends on the area / availability of hires aerial
imagery and completeness of the map in general. In your area this
wasn't probably available, so nobody cared to map trees.


> years, you'd think it has seen some use. I would think that maybe 20% of the
> nodes are significant landmark trees.


Seems a high number to me, but even if it was true: this means that
80% of all trees are not tagged according to what you consider the
valid definition. I think at this point we should adjust the tag
description to what is actually tagged and not what has been written
there for years and nobody (well, 80%) cared for it or took it
literally. Or what would be the alternative that you suggest?


> So even if your assumtion is correct, 1% means throwing away 3729
> well-tagged nodes, in my expectation it would be throwing away some 75000
> good nodes.


I was at no point speaking about "throwing away" nodes. I would expect
a special tree to be described by it's specialties, and I would never
expect one simple tag like "natural=tree" to refer to something
extraordinary and special.


> I am always opposed to needlessly destroying the work of those mappers.


me too.

cheers,
Martin