[Talk-GB] Birmingham Tree Import

Craig Wallace craigw84+osm at gmail.com
Mon May 8 23:28:33 UTC 2017

On 2017-05-07 14:31, Andy Townsend wrote:
> Anyone got any more comments about this import and the points raised 
> below?
> We (the DWG) got a complaint about it at the time (and there were a 
> lot of "not in my name" comments on this list and on IRC), but there 
> don't seem to have been any further comments since 27th April.

 From a quick look, several issues with the species tags:
Some of them also include the cultivar, is that really part of the 
species? Or should that be in a separate tag?
Some of the the tags appear to be truncated. eg the example tree from 
the wiki is Liquidambar styraciflua 'Worpl
Presumably this should be Liquidambar styraciflua 'Worplesdon'. Is this 
a problem in the source data (limited to 32 characters)? Whether or not 
cultivar is a separate tag, it doesn't make sense to include half of the 
Some of the tags are not a specific species. eg there are several 
examples of species=Betula sp. It would be better just to tag this as 

For genus, I don't see much point in adding a tag for that, if there is 
already a tag for the species.


More information about the Talk-GB mailing list