[Tagging] tagging single trees

[NopMap]

A few corrections are in order...


Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
> 
> * Nop points out that the wiki definition of trees says a "lone tree"
> and interprets this as a prominent tree (a landmark, etc.).
> 

The wiki says: "lone or significant" tree and I interpret that as a
prominent tree.


Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
> 
> * Nop says that this is unfair because he's already been doing the
> "right thing" (ie following the WIki guidelines) and so it's everyone
> else that's wrong.
> 

Not quite. I have added only a few trees myself. I say this is destructive
as about 2400 Mappers appear to have been doing "the right thing" while 75%
of the "bad" trees are from only 3 mass imports.


Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
> 
> * Nop then points out stats from Germany which he says support his point.
> 

...as well as global stats by somebody else which show roughly the same.



Serge Wroclawski-2 wrote:
> 
> I think I understand where Nop is coming from. This doesn't appear to
> be a tagging issue as much as it is about "doing the right thing". I
> think he feels that he and others who followed the Wiki definition are
> being punished by needing to retag their data.
> 

Somewhat like that. I think nullifying 4 years of work by 2400 people who
are not here to voice their opinion is thoughtless, unfriendly, destructive
- anything but an adequate solution.

I am game for any solution that does not destroy existing data.

bye
              Nop

-- 
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/tagging-single-trees-tp5501462p5519806.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.