[Tagging] tagging single trees

[Pierre-Alain Dorange]

NopMap <ekkehart at gmx.de> wrote:

> Yes, you missed something. 

I think you also miss lot of things.

Reply you got were mostly sarcastic and it's a vague discussion in an
obscur ML.

Launch a bot after receiving 3 confuse answers on a mailing list is not
a consensus. 
Many users do not read this thread and discover an unknwon tag in the
area they work. 
It usually consider as a bad thing in OSM to change things without real
consensus (long discussion and a majority of the people that participate
to the discussion agree) and without any documentation.

If everybody act like you did, OSM would become a big mess.

On the tree discussion.
Yes "tree" tag was starting for remarkable tree but now the real use is
for tree. 
Of course users that tag remarkable tree would see there work  disolve
by this, but it's allready done.
Adding cluster with a bot is not a good option, 2 remarkable tree can be
close (i add example here in my town).
We have to discuss and found a reasonable option.

Original single tree tag was probably an error, because as it has been
said, we usually tag remarkable things with a remarkable tag not a
common one...
-- 
Pierre-Alain Dorange

Why don't i run a bot that change "cluster" to "bazinga", i prefer this
word ? (isarcasm)