Hello,
I’m quite new and I thought good to convert lines of trees (which are actually lined trees from the satellite view not just "close trees) into the “tree row” tags (whilst keeping data if the trees had some).
The idea behind was to declutter the map, help loading the map (sometime there is 250 trees in a small place) and reducing the amount of nodes in the database (~70B I saw somewhere).
Because the data of the trees are kept and what I changed clearly looked like lines of trees made to be in line, I think the changes were a good idea.
Those changes have been pointed at for 2 reasons. One being that I override someone else work, which I totally understood but I think it’s the nature of community? Someone does some work and others can build upon that.
The second reason is that by deleting the node, it harms those wanting to do like tree counts in a city. Which is totally valid to?
I think those points are completely valid and that the idea behind my work is quite valid too (obviously). So now I don’t know what to think about my change sets.
The point is, should I revert the change sets I did when "Converting trees to tree_rows»? If so, what is a good use of tree_rows as I never see them outside of stuff that I would I have done (and be confronted to)?
Thanks.
Hello and welcome to the forum and to OpenStreetMap 
Your motiv seems honourable. I guess I start with yout final question:
Tree rows are a simple way of mapping a row of trees. It’s fast and simple. If there is more time and / or better imagery available one can get into more detail by adding each single tree to that way.
By going the other way around (making a single way out of a bunch of nodes that were separate trees before) we are losing information. That is something we don’t wish to happen because in general: the more (correct) information, the better. We simply collect that data and offer it to the world. There are many ways that people use our data abd it is not up to us to decide what is important and what is not.
The database grows each minute and once a node is created it never really disappears again. So there’s no “too much”.
Keeping that in mind, yes, maybe undo your trees to rows edits.
Also, I do hope you won’t have to wait this long for an answer again next time
Happy mapping
Silversurfer83
4 Likes
if there are already individual trees (natural=tree nodes) mapped, you can add a tree row by connecting the nodes with a way and tag it natural=tree_row but the tree tags should not be removed from the nodes.
Someone who wants to declutter their rendering could just render the tree row and skip the individual trees when they are in a tree row.
3 Likes
Hello,
I guess I kind of forget my post, my bad.
I did get answers in private messages about this issue, well, years ago now.
The conclusion is the same as what you are saying.
I did reverse those changesets, and I’m now happily marking individual trees and other stuffs.
Thanks for the great explanation; it sure will be helpful for others with the same question.
Have nice days and happy mapping !
3 Likes
Oh boy. Now I see the date on your post
I shouldn’t read the forums on my nightshift, I guess
6 Likes