[Tagging] type for natural=tree (leaved <-> leafed)
murry.mcentire at gmail.com
Sun Jul 7 17:18:52 UTC 2013
On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 10:59 AM, John Sturdy <jcg.sturdy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2013 at 5:47 PM, fly <lowflight66 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Am 07.07.2013 18:33, schrieb fly:
>> > Hey
>> > Could an BE-speaking person please tell me what the right spelling for
>> > broad_leafed is. Numbers are almost even in the data. Probably, a nice
>> > task for a bot.
>> Sorry, numbers are towards "leaved".
>> > On the other hand, I wonder if it is useful to use type=* and not
>> > tree_type=* or tree:type=* as type is the key for relations and it is
>> > not that good to use different meanings of one key.
> On further thought, I'd go for type=deciduous, rather than
> broad-lea[fv]ed. Not quite the same thing (I think larches are deciduous
> but not broad-leaved) but I think it's the normal "technical" term (the
> others being "evergreen").
I suspect the intent was to tag deciduous trees rather than broadleaf(v)ed
trees. There are a number of broadleaf evergreens. Good luck on leafed vs.
leaved - some British dictionaries list one as a definition for the other
Murry (not a British English speaker)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging