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

[Peter Elderson]

It's mainly about the naturals tree_row and forest, they are mapped without
specifying individula trees. Of they contain trees that are in themselves
interesting enough, they can be mapped individually, but most trees are
just trees in a forest or row. A useful atrribute of forest or treerow is
density. This can be easily measured and documented as average spacing.
About the numbers: trees in forests, nobody is going to count them, it's
impossible. Short tree_rows can be counted, but in the Netherlands almost
every road, motorway, swinmming pool, parking lot, park, waterway, farm,
...,  and even forests are lined with tree rows. Often double and triple
rows along hundreds of miles of roads water areas and canals. None of the
separate trees are interesting, but the lining tree_rows and the aspect are
significant elements in de landscape. So nobody is going to count those
trees, let alone map those trees individually. And think of the change
rate, you would need lifetimes just to keep up with small changes, whereas
the forest or tree_row as a whole remains the same.


2018-05-06 22:20 GMT+02:00 Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>:

>
>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180507/b94ee1cf/attachment.html>