I propose deprecating use of the latter two tags (planted_date and planted), since the broad concept (when a feature (including plants) came into existence) is the same. Thoughts?
This is my first time making a post like this; please tell me if this is off-base!
The proposal’s contents have been expanded and moved to the OSM Wiki so it can go through the proper proposal process.
I am asking myself the same question, but nevertheless I agree to the proposal of @UsefulRabbit. start_date=* should do the job good enough to replace the other 2 tags.
In Austria, the age (actually its the size) of street trees when planted is important, because the older/bigger they are, the quicker they can provide shade and cool the air through evapotranspiration.
For example this tree was about 25 years old when planted. It was called an “XL-Tree” and very expensive.
Sure, the planting date of a tree can be interesting or even important in some cases, but does ist matter if we use “date_planted” or the more common “start_date” for it?
Or do you want to express that 2 dates are necessary - the first date when the tree was originally planted in the plant nursery and the second date when it was removed from there and planted at it’s final location (which would be “date_replanted” then)?? I don’t think that would make much sense but I am ready to learn better.
Btw. your example tree does not have a start_date/planted_date at all.
For what it’s worth, OpenHistoricalMap would tag the replanting date as start_date=*. For example, this tree was replanted in 2022. Although we don’t know where it came from, this incomplete chronology relation indicates that it originally sprouted in 1987 – that it was already 35 years old when planted. This same approach applies to artwork or anything else, such as this sculpture that was first installed a couple years after it was completed in a studio somewhere.
By contrast, OSM makes an exception for works of art, defining start_date=* as the date of completion, not the date of (re)installation, presumably because that’s what appears on the plaque beside the work of art. A tree is somewhat less likely to have a plaque indicating either its vintage or its planting date, so you’d either have to get it from a published source or estimate it based on the tree’s size – which you might as well tag explicitly.
I dont have a preference what date start_date should define, but I would like to have the possibility to tag the actual age (year of sprouting) as well as the (more often known) year of it being planted at the actual location.
I guess for most trees mapped in OSM those two dates are not the same.
I guess that most trees in OSM do not have any start_date at all because in most cases it is not known to the mapper, not visible OTG and hard to verify anyhow. The same applies to the planting date which usually is unknown unless the mapper happend to observe the planting process by chance.
I have no objection against a replanting date but I wonder which kind of value it would add to the data. I can understand someone may be interested in the age of an impressive tree but what is the replanting date good for?
So if someone might want to distinguish between these two dates we would suely need clearly documented tags for both. At the time being nobody can know, if these tags
planted_date=*
date_planted=*
date:planted=*
year_planted=*
plant_year=*
describe the date when the tree was originally planted (date of sprouting) or when the tree was replanted at the very spot where it is located at the time of tagging.
There are 71 =tree + moved= , including some dates . While I agree start_date= should be used for the beginning of existence in the position now, it’s surely valid to ask what age they may be. In properly done construction projects, or management, each =tree will have a ref= , which is often signposted with species= and even a QR code. Then it’s a matter of whether there is an age determined, and copyright.
