[Tagging] tree rows vs individual trees

[Tom Pfeifer]

On 09.02.2019 20:15, Tobias Knerr wrote:
> Because the two feature types exist at different levels of abstraction
> (a tree is *part* of a tree row), I do not see this as a violation of
> one feature, one element.
> 
> Instead, I consider it comparable to mapping building:part areas within
> a building=residential outline within a landuse=residential, or mapping
> amenity=parking_space areas within an amenity=parking.

On 09.02.2019 20:14, John Sturdy wrote:
 > I think it's also comparable to mapping the pylons of a power line and the line itself.

I would not consider those analogies applicable.

Both pylon and line exist, and both building:part and building are tangible objects.

The tree_row, on the other hand, is a virtual collection of trees, and forming a row is just in the 
perspective of the observer. There is nothing tangible between the trees, once the individual, 
tangible trunks are mapped.

Thus the tree_row is a simplification, because the mapper was not able to map the trees.

Otherwise I could just arbitrarily connect some trees in a park and declare it a row.

tom