[Tagging] tagging single trees

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:20 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/9/6 NopMap <ekkehart at gmx.de>:

> 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?

+1

Sometimes the wiki and what people map just don't match up. There are
other examples I could bring up of this.

Fundamentally the question, whether you think it's 1% (Martin and I
do) or 20%, as you do), is "Do you propose 80-99% of all trees be
retagged, or 1-20%?"

As mentioned, we already have tags to indicate prominence. A tree
might be a landmark, it might be historic, etc.  Things which stand
out are marked as standing out. It's silly to mark something as
"ordinary".

In this case, I think the issue of "lone tree" is a bit ambiguous
anyway. What is a "lone tree"? I think of a lone tree as a single
tree, probably one not in a forest. But in an urban setting, unless
you're in a park, all the trees are "lone trees".

- Serge