Talk:Tag:natural=tree row

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! 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)

Tree-lined roads and streets

Some mappers use the natural=tree_row tag on urban and suburban streets. I feel that this is awkward because many urban streets are tree-lined. Therefore, the tree_lined=yes attribute tag makes more sense to me. If the tree row tag is used on inner-city streets, renderers should interrupt it at junctions, if that is technically possible. In carto style at least, this is not done, and it looks confusing to have the green line (which looks like a hedge) cross another street. --Alfons234 (talk) 08:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

rather than yes, better be explicit and use tree_lined=both or right, left. --Dieterdreist (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Realistically, renderers are never going to interrupt tree_row at junctions - too complex. If the tree row is interrupted, it should be marked as segments - the logic is mapping the trunk of the first tree to the trunk of the last. Used tree_lined if you can't be bothered with this :) Phodgkin (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Circular tree rows?

Are "tree rings" (my made-up terminology), i.e, a circular line of trees, suitable to be mapped as a tree row? In this example, a line of trees runs around either side of a circular path. Although there is no start or end, it otherwise seems to fit the definition of a line of trees? Casey boy (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)