[Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, 14 Aug 2020 at 11:55, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> as it is stated in the page, you should not do it. Having the individual
> trees mapped does not change the property of the road as being tree lined.
> Similarly, you can map individual trees within a tree row, but you do not
> have to.
>

If that is the case, I don't see the purpose of this tag.  If it's a case
of one or
the other then it serves a purpose: you can avoid tediously adding the tree
rows
and instead add the tree-lined property to save time.  It seems pointless
and
redundant to permit both, and is likely to lead to data inconsistencies over
time: trees get removed so the way tagged as a tree row is removed but
the mapper doesn't notice the tree-lined property on the object.

I'm also doubtful about the utility of the tag anyway.  How close do the
trees
have to be for an object to be tree-lined?  Exactly on the periphery/?
Within
a metre?  Two metres?  Ten metres?  A kilometre?  What if the trees line
only
three of four sides?  Or there are sizable gaps for the entrances?

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200814/cd1a931b/attachment.htm>