[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - key:spacing=*

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sun May 6 20:20:24 UTC 2018

sent from a phone

> On 6. May 2018, at 04:36, <osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au> <osm.tagging at thorsten.engler.id.au> wrote:
> Exactly locating and mapping every single tree along a long tree row can take hours. And in the majority of cases, you are probably not going to be much more exact than a tree_row with spacing would have been, given the usual size of trees and the precision you can get from GPS or not ultra-high resolution imagery.

I tend to disagree, particularly because it can be most interesting to see where there are disturbances in the rhythm. „Multiplying“ trees with copy+paste is quite fast, the resulting individual trees can be easily refined (e.g. species, diameter, can be „virtually logged“ after they fell, etc.). Getting to a reasonable spacing distance requires a lot of counting, some measurement and a division, or you will end up with cumulative errors that start becoming significant.
Individual trees are better suited for iterative improvements, they are simpler to create and easier to maintain. Trees are big enough you don’t need super hires imagery. 

I agree there are situations where regular spacing would be best recorded as a tag, but I wouldn’t count trees in. For a row of bollards or the spacing of fence posts (for example) it could make sense.


More information about the Tagging mailing list