[Tagging] tagging single trees
NopMap
ekkehart at gmx.de
Fri Sep 10 04:54:33 BST 2010
Hi!
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> so 2 trees are a "cluster"? IMHO that's also agains your own
> intentions, because 2 trees can be as significant as one. Even three
> or four. Traditionally, oaks appear in small groups of 3 to 5
> ("Eichengruppe"). They are mostly landmarks or at least good points
> for orientation.
>
> Why don't you simply tag the landmark trees as landmarks and keep the
> trees being trees? WIll we have all trees that have at least another
> tree within 50 metres as "cluster" in our database in the future, i.e.
> thousands or even millions of them?
>
Because you only can assume that something probably is a landmark.
But it is a fact that a tree ist not standing alone. I'd rather mark facts
with a tag.
And it is a heuristic. Of course it is possible that there may be special
cases where it is not correct. But if you look at the massive heaps of trees
they are whole citys mass imported from some data source without further
tagging, probably none of them are landmarks. So I am content if it is only
99% correct.
If you want to oppose this approach, please show me a few 100 examples where
it went awry. A debate only makes sense if the debate does not take more
time than fixing the exceptions. And it does not make sense at all if the
problems are only theoretical.
bye
Nop
--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5517044.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the Tagging
mailing list