[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