21–30 of 74 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting these maps are missing many trees such as the DC missing those around the the capital building. Presumably because different organizations are in charge of them.
When it's the building, the correct spelling is capitol.
https://quebio.ca/en/arbresmtl
EDIT: Wondering about the distinct areas without trees on the island? Those are buroughs that look as though they don't report to the City of Montreal. In the case of Westmount, it's because they are a distinct city.
This is an unusually nice website, but if you like this, check your own city, they might have one too! For example, here's: DC: https://trees.dc.gov/apps/3677bceead544db79a412e3ab0a68588/e... Boston: https://boston.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?... LA: https://losangelesca.treekeepersoftware.com/index.cfm
Interesting these maps are missing many trees such as the DC missing those around the the capital building. Presumably because different organizations are in charge of them.
See also: OpenTrees.org: 13,910,944 open data trees from 192 sources in 19 countries. https://opentrees.org https://github.com/stevage/opentrees
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tbh I feel like that's probably an underestimate, but otoh that's probably a fraction of the cost of maintaining the trees themselves, so I'm not sure it's worth fretting over.
And the whole point of having a government of London is because it's a huge city. If it was just a large car park it wouldn't need a government. The city is for people, and people both like trees and benefit from many properties of these trees such as their ability to absorb rainfall and provide shade as well as positive contribution to air quality (well, unless you're allergic to tree pollen) so it makes sense for t…
I think the comment is specifically about the custom built website to track and map the trees.
I bet this this website cost London £100k or more. They probably contracted it out to some supplier to build and maintain, and they are charging through the nose for hosting it, because the people on the London horticultural team don't do HTML. While I applaud the effort, I do wonder if it is tax money well spent. Perhaps a spreadsheet on a shared drive would have been better value for money?
London GDP is about £500 billion. They’ll need this info to maintain the trees in any case. If it cost 100k, it would be 0.02% of GDP. For the difference trees make to urban areas, it would be utterly trivial. If you made £50k cash after tax a year (so closer to 80k before tax), it would be £10 a year, that’s the fraction. Of course it costs far more than £100k to maintain this data.
Imagine a sign saying "Just donate £10 so we can have a database to tell us where our trees are", I bet the vast majority of Londoners wouldn't hand over £10.
Even a keen gardener wouldn't likely pay £10 to have a map of where all the vegetables in their vegetable patch were.
i should point out that not all of the uk cares as much for its trees: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/06/sheffield-ci...