I didn't get to mention this in my post, but what I love most about being alive today is being able to walk outside and ask a question like "where's the tallest tree?" Then come up with some answer after a couple days of analysis. Questions that you thought were impossible to answer are now in a way answerable.
I wonder how accurate the locations are in this LiDAR dataset and/or the Queens Giant Wikipedia article. The Alley Pond Park candidate looks suspiciously close to the the Queens Giant, so I wonder if it's actually picking the same tree?
The (typically government) agencies that pay for these scans create specifications for the data to meet. This is not hard to find. IIRC the accuracy is generally less than 0.1m (though the precision is usually 0.01 meters or feet).
One of these is on my usual walking route and I had no idea. After reading this, I looked at it carefully and was wowed. These things can hide in plain sight, but I appreciated having my attention drawn to it. It's great!
Okay, so we should measure the trees, but not write down what we find out (or write it down and hide it from everyone)? That framing isn't any less bizarre to me
One of these is on my usual walking route and I had no idea. After reading this, I looked at it carefully and was wowed. These things can hide in plain sight, but I appreciated having my attention drawn to it. It's great!
no, parent said that the list isn't a great idea, not the act of measurement.