Proposed features/Tree rows

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

Tree rows
Status:	Approved (active)
Proposed by:	Tordanik
Tagging:	natural=tree_row
Applies to:
Definition:	line of trees
Rendered as:	<appearance>
Draft start:	2010-02-22
RFC start:	2010-02-22
Vote start:	2011-02-25
Vote end:	2011-03-11

natural=tree_row, used on a way, describes a line of trees.

The way runs through the tree trunks' bases, starts at the trunk of the first tree in the tree row, and ends at the trunk of the last tree in the tree row.

Contents 1 Alternative proposals 2 Related tags 3 Discussion 3.1 Voting

Alternative proposals

Other suggestions for tagging lines of trees are

• landuse=treerow. This doesn't seem an ideal solution for two reasons: The landuse key is commonly used on areas, not ways. It should also be avoided to stack landuses - a line of trees, however, can easily be part of e.g. a residential area.

Related tags

• natural=tree - if individual trees in a tree row are mapped, the tree nodes should be part of the tree row way. Usually, however, it's not necessary to map the individual trees in a tree row.

Discussion

Please add comments to the talk page.

This proposal was also discussed

• in the German section of the forum: [1]
• on the Tagging mailing list (RFC mail): archive

Voting

Indicate whether you approve or oppose this tagging proposal. If you oppose it, please state your reason and join the discussion on the talk page.

• I approve this proposal. --r-michael--R-michael 10:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Lomonossof 18:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Tordanik 23:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --EvanE 01:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Quasilotte 07:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I oppose to give a separate tag for a forest of special shape. A row of trees is a subclass of managed forest, yet it is small. If you are able to see a tree row on satellite imagery, than you can draw a long rectangular polygon tagged landuse=forest (or natural=wood). --Glebius 06:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Ajoessen 06:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --lutz 06:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --!i! 07:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --surveyor54 07:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. User 5359 08:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. There's really no point in drawing it as a forest. We would end up with four long and narrow forests where there's actually a large street with trees between the carriages. I've already used the tag in a couple of places and would like to see it approved. --SimoneSVC 08:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --polderrunner 08:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I agree with Glebius. Managed forests are also composed of many tree rows. I mean, we already have enough tags for trees. Why should we use different tags when it is a single node, an area or a line ? --Pieren 09:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Noframe 09:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC) A tree row is not a managed forest its most part of an alley
• I approve this proposal. ----Jongleur 09:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --chris66 11:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. -- Al3xius 12:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --MetiorErgoSum 12:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Zewan 12:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Hans Wurst 14:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I meh this proposal. What's wrong with just using natural=tree on a way? Stevage 13:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal.-- Kaylee 13:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC) I agree with Glebius. We already have polygon-mapped forest rows. Proposed scheme is less-detailed than polygons with landuse=forest tag.
• I approve this proposal. --Garl 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC) maybe add attribute WIDTH:20m
• I oppose this proposal. Loir 13:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC) I agree with Glebius.
• I approve this proposal. -- Errt 13:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. -- @Stevage: this is answered on the discussion page: how would you deal with a closed way? Beside this I also can't see the point in having another approximative tag for a feature that is already better describable with the current tags (i.e. natural=tree on single trees (which is trivial to map with the growing availability of good aerial imagery) and landuse=forest / landcover=trees for polygons), and as the proposed tag makes it almost impossible to achieve for instance a decent rendering, because the important details are missing (how big is the crown -> shaded area),(what is the distance of the trees).--Dieterdreist 16:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Peter Maiwald 16:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. --Fx99 15:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC) putting the shape into the tag is totally inconsistant with OSM practice!
• I abstain this proposal. --Scai 15:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC) I would prefer using natural=tree on ways. But I think tree_row is still way better than using landuse=forest.
• I oppose this proposal. Although my request has been on the talk page for 50 weeks, nobody has yet been able to produce a specific example of a naturally-occurring tree row. Even if a handful of specific examples were found, the vast majority of tree rows are man-made barriers, so this should be either man_made=tree_row or barrier=tree_row. This tag would create a precedent for the natural=* tag being used for features that aren't naturally-occurring. It's like using natural=stone_carving instead of tourism=artwork artwork_type=sculpture. --goldfndr 19:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --luch86 07:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --higa4 10:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --ulrichm 15:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --tosseto 01:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I think correct to use the landuse=forest for ways. --Canabis 08:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Seawolff 09:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Tree row is always managed object, so it must be tagged as landuse, not natural. landuse=forest (with area=no in case of closed ways) is the most relevant tagging. natural=tree on a way in case of a wild narrow tree row is good too. --Surly 11:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. for practical reasons (although tree rows are not 'natural' IMHO...) --Taunide 17:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. --AMDmi3 19:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. - landuse=* indicates an area. rather use treelined=yes/left/right/both/no on highway=* or map each single natural=tree --Skippern 19:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Kapege 15:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see the point of this proposal. Don't we already have tree rows tagged with natural=tree? – Victor Bielawski 17:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --winbladh 9:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Quantumstate 15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Basstoelpel 20:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. It is insufficient to cover all cases; such as double or treble rows. As suggested by others, have a landuse=forest or similar. Indigomc 22:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. --miraculixOSM 19:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC) For reasons see users Glebius and Kaylee above
• I approve this proposal. --Henri97 21:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. landuse=forest or natural=wood are quite enough. --Zverik 07:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --MarkS 17:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC) I can see the arguments in favour of most of the alternatives, but for practical reasons this is my preference.
• I approve this proposal. --JJ Rammerl 20:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The vote has ended with 35 approvals, and 52 total votes. The proposal is approved.