Ciao Cecchino, se sono chiuse da cancelli forse sarebbe più giusto access=private che access=no?

Hi Emeltet,

there are still at least 338 trees with an incorrect wikipedia value. The tag links to a species page instead of a specific specimen. Do you plan to fix them?

Thanks, and happy mapping.

Hi UNIPEI2025,

the difference circumference values are because it's a multi stemmed tree, or because the original source data had four different trees with the same coordinates?

@fgouget two different trees were merged, I should have fixed it here: changeset/179804620

Quella data viene già registrata tra i metadati del changeset. start_date va utilizzato per la data in cui l'elemento ha cominciato ad esistere nel mondo reale, qua ad esempio potrebbe l'essere la data in cui è nato l'albero/è stato piantato.

What's the need for this comment? 👀 This information is already present in the changeset metadata, see "revert:id".

Ciao mariigii123,

non sono sicuro di cosa volessi fare, ma avevi mappato due giganteschi edifici, che non sembrano avere riscontro con la realtà. Per tale motivo ho dovuto ripristinare la situazione precedente.

Ciao Federico,

non mi torna una cosa. Questo albero ha start_date identica al giorno in cui l'hai mappato. Cosa rappresenta quella data?

grazie e buon mapping

Ciao granpasso811,

sono quasi sicuro, ma mi confermi che in questo albero: node/13143950147

la circonferenza è indicata in cm? E quindi andrebbe taggata come 3.67 (l'unità di misura di default sono i metri). Oppure è un errore?

grazie e buon mapping

Hi Ronan,

node/10276559875/history

is o.50 meant to be 0.50?

Hi PcMouse1,

node/11558309736

what's the meaning of "circumference"="canadian amateur radio basic qualification study guide"?

Ciao 3Pappa3,

way/24909483

qua hai indicato che c'è un marciapiede mappato separatamente su un lato della strada, ma non vedo nessun marciapiede mappato separatamente. Un errore?

Sorry, me again… I just noticed that the license of that dataset is CC BY 4.0. I’m wondering how it was imported 10 years ago in the first place. I couldn't find any information in the wiki and in osm.wiki/Import/Catalogue.

… but it was actually “4” in the 2015 dataset, while the other values appear to be correct. I assume the dataset contained some errors, so there’s no way to detect them organically. Since the identifiers seem to have remained the same, they could be used to update the trees with the latest data. That’s outside my capabilities, so I’ll just correct the anomalous values I come across when possible.

Sorry for the many comments. Bye, and happy mapping.

Ok, I’ve just checked this tree in the original source data. In the latest version, its circumference is 1.80. At this point, I don’t know where those other values came from.

species="Fraxinus excelsior" today.

node/3658160942

25 m tall but only 0.04 girth. Again, could be 4 m girth in reality? I'm starting to think that all circumference values added by these user should be multiplied by 100, but after 10 years I'm not sure how to find them.

Hi Des Troisdorfer,

are the trees with height and circumference equal to zero an error in the source data maybe? E.g. changeset/153918464

Could you check it out? Thanks and good mapping

Hi Richard, the standard unit for circumference values in meters. I suppose these are meant to be centimeters? Also is weird 22 trees have the exact same circumference and height, what's the source?

thanks and good mapping

After a year, this time looking at Aesculus hippocastanus trees for my nerdy tree statistics: osm.wiki/w/index.php?title=User:Ivanbranco&oldid=2958848

I noticed this tree: node/3658154622

this tree is 25m tall but its girth is only 0.02. Maybe it was supposed to be 2 instead? I wonder how we can fix all these errors, I see the import author is not active anymore.

Hi Cyril5C,

just curious, what happened to this tree?
was mapped as tree, then tree_stump, then tree again. But the height and circumference value remained the same (they should be changed if a new tree was planted).

Also, the circumference is wrong. Maybe it was supposed to be 1.60?

thanks and good mapping