Talk:Tag:natural=tree row

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Natural?

A tree row is far from being natural! Would landuse be more appropriate? Teuxe 14:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Using the natural=* key does not mean that a feature is "natural", it can also be used for features that exist due to human intervention. The key serves only as a loose grouping of geological and landcover-related element types. As landuse=* is used exclusively for (relatively) large-scale areas and is not never on features that are restricted to nodes or ways, I would not consider it more appropriate. --Tordanik 01:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

rendering of tree row

can it be renderd like a hedge? The difference is that a hedge is a barrier and you can pass throu a tree row

Is key:tree_lined still in use?

The tag tree_lined=* is not documented. Is this key still recommended or deprecated?--Rudolf (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Number of trees?

Hi, shouldn't it be possible to add a count=* or distance=* so we can model how much trees are within the line? --!i! This user is member of the wiki team of OSM 22:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That would make sense in my opinion. There also is a tree_count key with a few uses. --Tordanik 15:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Counts might be problematical for very long tree rows (avenues). For instance Lime Tree Avenue in Clumber Park is about 5.4 km long. A simpler alternative might be to measure, or estimate the average spacing of trees over a short stretch of the tree row. Suggested tags tree_row:spacing=* or tree_spacing=*. SK53 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was a way to specify spacing or tree count for 3d renderer. Apparently not. But I'm going to use tree_count=*, and alternativaly tree_spacing=*... (talk) 19:18 10 December 2017

Rendering of tree rows

I have used these quite a bit, both for the classical parallel lines of poplars, and for cases where hedges have been allowed to grow excessively eg for screening. I do find that tree rows are rendered very brightly and, in my opinion, should appear more like a broad hedge or a strip of woodland. --NorthIsland (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Distinctive tree rows

@Tordanik - tagging list discussions never produce a consensus. How would we make progress then? One outcome was the 'distinctiveness' when mapping tree_row in addition to mapping the individual trees. Without a rule, I could connect any two trees and call it a row. --Polarbear w (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I assume we're talking about this thread on whether it's ok to map both the individual trees and the tree row at the same time. I have a hard time seeing any outcome along the lines of "only distinctive tree rows are allowed to be mapped". Note that I participated in that thread myself, and would have objected had I been under the impression that people were suggesting to change the definition of natural=tree_row in that manner. But my understanding of the thread was that it was about an entirely different topic.
My reason for objecting to this change is that I want all tree rows to be eligible for natural=tree_row, not just notable/significant/distinctive ones. Two trees aren't a "tree row" according to common-sense understanding of the term, so I don't see a contradiction there. --Tordanik 19:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
So, what _is_ the definition of a tree row than? What is the maximum tree distance for not being a row anymore? What is the minimum number of trees for a common-sense row? Does the line have to be straight? The reason for the Feb discussion, IIRC, were arbitrarily connected trees in an urban street environment.--Polarbear w (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
There is no precise definition that I could express in numbers, and I'm not convinced that one is needed beyond "I know it when I see it". :) Are there examples where people persistently disagreed about the definition of natural=tree_row in good faith?
Re-reading the Feb discussion, the opening question was definitely about a possible conflict with "one feature, one element". If you're basing your reading on one of the later mails, I'd be interested in a link to the archive to ensure we're looking at the same part of the conversation. --Tordanik 15:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Average distance

I use average_distance=* to indicate the estimated average distance between trees in a tree row in m. This is a generic measurement key, comparable to width=* etc. So it can be used for any way or area feature where average distance or density is good to know and easy to estimate, such as a forest or an orchard. Estimation: row: just pace the distance between a few trees. If distance is very irregular, pace a longer secton and divide by the number of tree-tree sections paced. area: estimate average distance in 2 or more directions, then use the average of averages. I am not plannng a proposal and voting for this. If it sticks and gets some usage, maybe. --Peter Elderson (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)