Talk:Key:denotation

Lossy "documentation"

Why is this key even accepted. There's basically now documentation for its values, just a bullet list?!? --Ij (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

* The wiki often documents current practice, and this key (however badly designed) is in use. Relevant here is that this key seems to have originated in disagreements over the entire practice of mapping trees. It's no wonder it comes off as poorly considered. Brycenesbitt (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

What about landmark natural monuments?

How one is supposed to tag tree that is both landmark and natural monument? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

*You could propose better tagging for natural monument. Something like Proposed_features/heritage where it is not just tagged as a landmark, but the name of the designating agency is present. Brycenesbitt (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Trees on nature trails

Should trees on nature trails get a new tag? They are usually not a natural monument and most of the time not a landmark either. --TBKMrt (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Any comments on that? If there is no comment until 2016-01-16 then I will include and use it anyway (probably using "denotation=nature_trail" --TBKMrt (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll take the absence of comments as nobody cares and add the tag soon once I got a usable image --TBKMrt (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2016‎

Since noone cares I included the tag. I already have an image for it and I will upload it soon. --TBKMrt (talk) 21:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I would not expect particular tags for trees close to trails, it is already in the data what is close to each other. If you want to tag the fact there is a sign/ board with information about the tree, I would suggest to use the established information=board for this. You can also add additional information like species, height etc. directly on the tree, it is not a denotation question. I have removed the tag for now, 2 instances globally do not indicate this is a “typical value”. —Dieterdreist (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

"Should trees on nature trails get a new tag?" no. What is the point of this new tag? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

WOW, after almost three years somebody is finally down to give an answer here, I'm soo happy, could start to cry right now. Of course the comment was not added before I waited +2 years. Really well done!

@Dieterdreist: Reverting an edit with the comment "there is alternative tagging available" and not providing the answer or maybe using the talk page or tell the editor is big time BS!

This is what I truely hate about OSM. --TBKMrt (talk) 11:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

My bets are on that noone will aswer for like a year or so - if anybody ready it at all. --TBKMrt (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

10 months :-) I don't understand the purpose of your tag, what's the difference between "a tree in a forest" and a "tree in a forest near a path" ? QuasarFr (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Street vs. urban trees

I think we should differentiate more between "street" and "urban" trees. In many cities there are tree registers in which, for example, a distinction is made between street and site/green/park trees. In my urban environment there are classically three denotations: "street" (trees along the lane, usually in public ownership), "park" (as mentioned trees in green urban spaces) and something like "private" (trees on plots and private properties). "street" and "park" are in use (see TagInfo) but maybee we can mention them somewhere? "urban" is a very rural-centristic category and more or less useless for urban questions and evaluations.--Supaplex030 (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Why you would need to map manually that tree is near road when it is achieved by mapping location of tree and geometry of a road? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Because accurate evaluations also require accurate data. Often there are trees close to the road that are not "street" trees (not on sidewalk area). See the detail mapped area around https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/52.47752/13.43325 for some examples (e.g. this vs. that tree).--Supaplex030 (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

"this vs. that tree" which of this trees is the "street" one? This closer to street, right? This should be distinguishable by criteria such as distance to street, area of scrub/grass of where tree is located and so on Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Streets have very different widths and street trees can also be on green verges that accompany the street. Anyway: I just wanted to call for a differentiated use of "urban" subtags - because if a denotation tag has already been set, it doesn't hurt to choose one of the few (!) other common tags for better differentiation.--Supaplex030 (talk) 08:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

"Streets have very different widths" - width=*, area:highway=* "street trees can also be on green verges that accompany the street" - I am not promising that it will work, but it sounds to be detectable as close to street / on small green area / not separate from street by wall/fence / not in garden Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I just read the notice: "in case of urban avenues it is suggested to use avenue and prioritize it over urban." Since I associated something different, rural, with "avenue", I haven't used it in these cases so far - but I will use it from now on.--Supaplex030 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)