[Tagging] tagging single trees
Alan Millar
amillar503 at gmail.com
Mon Sep 6 17:12:16 BST 2010
>> M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> That is not true. There already is an extension tag,
>> denotation=avenue or
>> denotation=urban and some people have used it when mass-mapping
>> generic
>> trees.
The solution seems pretty simple to me. Add something like
"denotation=landmark", and then you always know when you have your
significant landmark tree. If you also want to add denotation=urban
on other trees, that's good also.
If you find a tree without any denotation, then you know you found a
tree without denotation. If you want specific status, one way or the
other, tag it with denotation. Don't trust the absence of a key to
tell you something important.
- Alan
More information about the Tagging
mailing list