Yes, that is what I believe. The only real differende may be seen in the fact, that an “avenue” originally meant a road or way definitely lined by trees on both sides, although today lots of roads without a single tree on either side carry “avenue” in their name. As such denotation=street could be used to make clear that the so tagged tree is standing at the side of a road which is not completely “lined” with trees but merely shows some trees or short tree rows here and there.
The reasons why I would not support 2 different tags for roadside trees:
- The difference is so minimal that we would surely end up with a mix up of those 2 tags and no data consumer could rely on correct use.
- Many former alleys (completely lined by trees) have been changed to “normal” roads by removing most of the trees as those prove to be too dangerous for modern high speed traffic with lots of cars crashing into one of the trees. More will follow. Conditions change fast as said before.
- The correct tagging of occasional trees here and there (which would be subject to
denotation=streetby definition) alongside a road bearing “avenue” in its name would result in some kind of paradoxic tagging (and to some endless discussions for sure). - Generally the tags denotation=avenue / urban / agricultural are senseless in my opinion. A roadside tree implies “avenue”, a tree in a build up area implies “urban” and the same applies to “agricultural”. Adding another documented value “street” would make things worse, not better.
I would favour the deprecation of either “avenue” or “street” instead.