[OSM-talk] Too much detail, or: mapping every single tree in a park

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 27.04.21 05:02, Skyler Hawthorne wrote:
> I came across this:
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/42.71889/-73.78869

Clearly wasn't me because I try to always add the height of the tree,
the trunk circumference, crown diameter, and of course species. I mean,
what use is it to know there is "some tree" there when you can't even
know if it will throw a shade big enough for a picnic!

Only half-joking here; personally I focus on urban trees because in the
city in summer it really makes a difference whether you're walking along
a street with 100 year old maple trees, or a few puny linden planted
only last year. Or, you might want to collect a certain sort of leaves
or fruit, and could use OSM to find out where the chestnut trees are in
the city.

Personally I draw the line when tree clusters are so close that I cannot
reliably identify the individual trees on aerial imagery. That's where
"trees" stop and "forest" starts for me ;)

Data-wise, nodes are really the simplest and easiest kind of thing in
OSM, they don't use much space, they can easily be filtered out in your
editor without having funny side effects... I'm not worried.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"