A couple of interesting anomalies on the map of London highlight complexities in our system of local government.
Hyde Park shows as an empty space. Hyde Park does contain trees, but the park is administered by the Royal Parks Commission, which is controlled by central government, not by the Greater London Assembly directly or indirectly.
And in South West London there is a large expanse where the only trees are along the A23 road which goes from South London to Brighton. I presume that the local (borough) authority doesn't collect tree data here. But that road, like many large through roads, is controlled by Transport for London, not the borough.
Looks like Croydon, Wandsworth, Brent, Lewisham, Hackney and Harringey are all boroughs which don't have tree databases or don't integrate the data with the GLA. Most of these have centrally maintained roads through them where TfL trees can be seen, eg the A232, the A20, the A206.
You can also see a huge drop-off in tree density going from Newham and Waltham Forest to Redbridge in the East. Since Redbridge is pretty leafy, there's obviously a significant difference in how trees are reported. It looks like maybe street maintenance in Redbridge just records one data point per segment of a road that has trees. So work or damage for all trees along Foo Road between the corner of Bar Road and the intersection with Asdf Street gets put under the same GPS location. Or they just misunderstood the assignment when passing their data to the GLA.
The City of London has noticeably fewer trees than neighbouring boroughs (except Hackney). But I think this might be that there are genuinely fewer trees as there are skyscrapers and no real residential streets.
The parks outside of the City of London which are controlled by the City Corporation also don't have trees shown on the map (eg West Ham Park and Wanstead Flats in Newham - council controlled Plashet Park has trees shown). Slightly ironic as these parks are well known for having much better maintenance than the borough controlled parks in the same areas.
The Isle of Dogs on the other hand, I think has more trees than are featured. Looks like we see Tower Hamlets trees but not trees which are privately managed as part of the Canary Wharf estates?
For what it’s worth, when it was posted here before, I raised an issue with a link to an additional data source as requested, and it’s still open five years later. I don’t think this is actively maintained.
OpenStreetMap also gathers tree data: https://mapcomplete.org/trees
We're around 31M trees now
A couple of interesting anomalies on the map of London highlight complexities in our system of local government.
Hyde Park shows as an empty space. Hyde Park does contain trees, but the park is administered by the Royal Parks Commission, which is controlled by central government, not by the Greater London Assembly directly or indirectly.
And in South West London there is a large expanse where the only trees are along the A23 road which goes from South London to Brighton. I presume that the local (borough) authority doesn't collect tree data here. But that road, like many large through roads, is controlled by Transport for London, not the borough.
Looks like Croydon, Wandsworth, Brent, Lewisham, Hackney and Harringey are all boroughs which don't have tree databases or don't integrate the data with the GLA. Most of these have centrally maintained roads through them where TfL trees can be seen, eg the A232, the A20, the A206.
You can also see a huge drop-off in tree density going from Newham and Waltham Forest to Redbridge in the East. Since Redbridge is pretty leafy, there's obviously a significant difference in how trees are reported. It looks like maybe street maintenance in Redbridge just records one data point per segment of a road that has trees. So work or damage for all trees along Foo Road between the corner of Bar Road and the intersection with Asdf Street gets put under the same GPS location. Or they just misunderstood the assignment when passing their data to the GLA.
The City of London has noticeably fewer trees than neighbouring boroughs (except Hackney). But I think this might be that there are genuinely fewer trees as there are skyscrapers and no real residential streets.
The parks outside of the City of London which are controlled by the City Corporation also don't have trees shown on the map (eg West Ham Park and Wanstead Flats in Newham - council controlled Plashet Park has trees shown). Slightly ironic as these parks are well known for having much better maintenance than the borough controlled parks in the same areas.
The Isle of Dogs on the other hand, I think has more trees than are featured. Looks like we see Tower Hamlets trees but not trees which are privately managed as part of the Canary Wharf estates?
This is great.
I turn to https://calscape.org a lot for inspiration and information on plants and trees to plant in my California garden.
You can send emails to trees in the city of Melbourne http://melbourneurbanforestvisual.com.au
Apparently they get a lot, even more than 12 years later: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-05-21/tree-love-letters-for...
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27626467 (2021, 21 comments)
For what it’s worth, when it was posted here before, I raised an issue with a link to an additional data source as requested, and it’s still open five years later. I don’t think this is actively maintained.
Well done, Barcelona! I am always amazed when I watching TV shows or movies how few trees there are in certain cities.
this reminds me of https://fallingfruit.org/
None one country in Asia or Africa. Not one.
I have an open issue to add the official Singapore government dataset on trees here, but unfortunately it hasn’t been touched in five years:
https://github.com/stevage/OpenTrees/issues/49
Glad to see this
Fabulous, thanks!