[Tagging] tagging single trees

[M∡rtin Koppenhoefer]

2010/9/7 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:27 AM, NopMap <ekkehart at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Anthony-6 wrote:
>>>
>>> Where does the 58,000 number come from again?
>>>
>>
>> If you scale up the result of the German analysis to the global numbers,
>> you'd get about 59000 individial trees that are intended as landmark trees
>> according to the wiki definition and would loose their meaning if the
>> definition is changed.
>
> Can't that analysis be expanded to the world, and the trees retagged?


can't you do this analysis and add tags to the landmark trees? Or
isn't that possible because the numbers are just guesses, and nobody
can tell if a single tree is significant or not, if it isn't checked?
Is a single apple tree in my garden significant? Are all the
non-significant trees lone, just because nobody mapped another tree
nearby, and at last (really): how do you mark trees that are
"significant AND lone"? Your numbers are flawed because you are just
checking "lone tree", not if it is at the same time not significant.

What is the purpose of tagging significant or lone trees the same? How
do you tag urban trees that are significant?

The current definition in the wiki is broken. It is broken because it
doesn't work, it isn't logical and it is subjective. Tag the features
for which a tree is significant, and you solve all the current
problems.

cheers,
Martin