User talk:Pander

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Definition of circumference

Hello Pander, what's the background of your change regarding the circumference key? I was a bit surprised by the edit, but maybe I just missed the reason? --Tordanik 18:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Some botanists pointed out to me that 1 m is incorrect. Some parts of the works also use 1.4 m or 1.5 m, but 1.3 is the minimals and the most used. See several sources on Wikipedia. In order to use changes in this value over time, it is paramount that not 1 m but 1.3 m is used, also to compare with other measurements in other tree registers from local governments and alike. Does this anwer your question? Pander (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
While your argument makes sense and I don't have a personal preference whether it should be 1 or 1.3 meters. I'm a bit uncomfortable because data mapped according to the old definition would now be wrong. Perhaps you can communicate the change a bit more publicly, e.g. on the forum or the mailing lists (if you haven't already)? --Tordanik 16:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Most people surveying trees should be using 1.3 m (or whatever chest high is applicable for their region). Could you find who added the 1 m definition in the JSON initially? Pander (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)