User talk:Pander

Definition of circumference

Hello Pander, what's the background of your change regarding the circumference key? I was a bit surprised by the edit, but maybe I just missed the reason? --Tordanik 18:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Some botanists pointed out to me that 1 m is incorrect. Some parts of the works also use 1.4 m or 1.5 m, but 1.3 is the minimals and the most used. See several sources on Wikipedia. In order to use changes in this value over time, it is paramount that not 1 m but 1.3 m is used, also to compare with other measurements in other tree registers from local governments and alike. Does this anwer your question? Pander (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

While your argument makes sense and I don't have a personal preference whether it should be 1 or 1.3 meters. I'm a bit uncomfortable because data mapped according to the old definition would now be wrong. Perhaps you can communicate the change a bit more publicly, e.g. on the forum or the mailing lists (if you haven't already)? --Tordanik 16:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Most people surveying trees should be using 1.3 m (or whatever chest high is applicable for their region). Could you find who added the 1 m definition in the JSON initially? Pander (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the value comes from. One thing to check would be what conventions the major tree imports used (e.g. the one listed here), which are probably responsible for the bulk of these tags. --Tordanik 19:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)