[Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Jul 29 09:36:32 UTC 2019


Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 11:14 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch>:

> Am 29.07.2019 um 10:44 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> >
> > this tag was introduced through an automated edit many years ago with
> the reasoning that natural=tree should only be used for “special” and alone
> standing trees, so that all other trees which were standing in groups had
> gotten the cluster tag. Meanwhile the saner approach is to tag special
> trees with additional tags and accept that natural=tree has no other
> implications than “a tree”. IMHO it is ok to see denotation=cluster as
> deprecated.
>
> That is a mischaracterisation of what actually happened. Originally
> (pre-mass imports of trees) natural=tree was intended only for notable
> trees (as landmarks, or for other reasons) and there was only a small
> number of them in the data. The mass-imports without further
> qualification lost that semantic information, which led to a longer
> conflict trying to undo the damage (which was already hopeless IMHO).
> The correct approach would have been to address the problem before the
> imports.
>


I would question that those "normal" trees that hid the "special" trees
have all been introduced through mass imports. IIRR in some "pioneer" areas
(e.g. Berlin, where no tree import has taken place, AFAIK) mappers had
already started mapping "any" tree even before the mass imports (e.g.
Girona, which had taken place shortly before SOTM July 2010). What I can
confirm is that the wiki stated at that time that natural=tree was for
special trees. But the wiki stated a lot of things in these days that had
to be dynamically adjusted to the actual evolvement of common consensus.
>From a general consideration, using a "normal"/generic tag to mean
something "special" is always asking for trouble.

Btw.: the automatic edit which introduced denotation was heavily disputed
at the time and had not been discussed anywhere before it was uploaded.

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190729/3b7b6a22/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list