Proposed features/Tree

The Feature Page for the approved proposal Tree can be located at Tag:natural=tree.

Tree
Status:	Approved (active)
Proposed by:	*
Tagging:	natural=tree
Applies to:	node
Definition:	<definition>
Rendered as:	green circle
Draft start:
RFC start:	*
Vote start:	2007-03-27
Vote end:	2007-07-09

Lone or significant trees

Some similar tags (height, type, etc.) to forests

Discussion

• Nothing Seems to have happened here. I tag trees from time to time, and am using the natural=tree tag. Is there any objections/suggestions? Or should a vote be started? Ben. 03:43 23 Decemeber 2006 (UTC)

• Still nothing happened. I'll start a vote. Ben. 17:14, 27 March 2007 (BST)

• I have added Proposed features/life which may overlap this proposal. --TimSC 20:13, 3 June 2007 (BST)
• What's the key/value for this feature? Also, I'd like to see Proposed features/trees merged into this, ideally with natural=tree for both ( a line indicating a line of trees, a node indicating an individual tree.) Who's proposing this feature? --Hawke 18:53, 11 June 2007 (BST)

Assuming for lone single trees? Plans to mark the species type? ShakespeareFan00 21:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I use name:botanical=quercus robur. Ipofanes 19:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)==

• What about tree registry ("Baumkataster", see [1]) numbers? --Tessarakt2 11:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Vote

• I approve of natural=tree, but dissapprove of natural=trees Ben. 17:14, 27 March 2007 (BST)
• I approve of natural=tree, but dissapprove of natural=trees (already covered by wood or forest) --ThomasKlosa 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• I approve of natural=tree and of natural=trees. Suggested icon for the latter: three trees overlapping. Wollschaf 20:31, 16 April 2007 (BST)
• I approve of natural=tree and of natural=trees with icons suggested by Wollschaf 09:39, 08 Jun 2007 (CEST)
• I approve of natural=tree and of natural=trees with icons suggested by Wollschaf --SpeedEvil 13:56, 11 September 2007 (BST)
• I approve of natural=tree. MikeCollinson 09:10, 11 June 2007 (BST)
• I oppose this in its current form. natural=trees should be merged into this one, with linear indicating a row of trees and a node indicating an individual tree. --Hawke 23:16, 14 June 2007 (BST)
• I approve natural=tree, linear would be nice for alleys (trees around road) --Walley 16:38, 11 July 2007 (BST)
• I approve natural=tree Ramack 13:01, 19 July 2007 (BST)
• I approve natural=tree and add a species= subkey ShakespeareFan00 21:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I approve of natural=tree. --JonS 09:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• I disaprove of natural=tree. I don't see the use in mapping individual trees. Unless on zoom=+18. Nickvet419 14:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I prefer for very specific trees something like historic=tree to avoid having some people mapping every tree in the neighbourhood --PhilippeP 12:06, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. It's waste of data space. --Will.i.am 19:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Krauti 21:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. - trees are significant objects in urban planning (at least in Germany), so why not map them in OSM? --Tessarakt2 11:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. no need to worry about space, and no need to map if you're not interested -- Robx 10:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

natural=tree has been Approved