You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jul 24, 2021. It is now read-only.
Reporter: amm [Submitted to the original trac issue database at 11.04am, Sunday, 28th March 2010]
To not clutter the map unnecessary, I would think it would be better, if individual trees would not render at z16 or z17 and instead be limited to z18, especially as individual trees aren't particularly note worthy.
With more areas having very highlevel areal imagery, it appears to be becoming more common to tag individual trees. An example is:
Author: EvanE [Added to the original trac issue at 10.46am, Wednesday, 31st March 2010]
Replying to [ticket:2836 amm]:
To not clutter the map unnecessary, I would think it would be better, if individual trees would not render at z16 or z17 and instead be limited to z18, especially as individual trees aren't particularly note worthy.
I disagree with your proposal. Especally I don't find the map cluttered by the little green dots. Disappearig at zoomlevel 15 seems to be good enough for me, particulary in your example.
Wether individal trees are noteworthy or not is highly debatable and depends on a personal point of view. In my view individual trees are good points for orientation and thus shouldn't disapear before z15.
General speaking, as the map becomes more and more complete in terms of streets and ways, there are other details which will be added to the map. In my opinion we should not ignore this fact by banning details to zoomlevel 18 solely.
Reporter: amm
[Submitted to the original trac issue database at 11.04am, Sunday, 28th March 2010]
To not clutter the map unnecessary, I would think it would be better, if individual trees would not render at z16 or z17 and instead be limited to z18, especially as individual trees aren't particularly note worthy.
With more areas having very highlevel areal imagery, it appears to be becoming more common to tag individual trees. An example is:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.5176&lon=7.44801&zoom=17&layers=B000FTF
And I am sure I have seen this sort of tagging elsewhere too, although I can't currently find more examples.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: