You missed my point a bit. I know that leaves that are already on the ground wouldn't be considered 'falling' (different tenses, obviously), but a pile of leaves on the ground isn't necessarily a tree either. Think of a pile of leaves that have been raked together like in this GIS image: http://www.metzair.com/gallery/d/1822-1/leaf_boo.jpg . (Yes, I know, there's some trees in the background, but pretend the top has been cropped off. XD )Merun wrote:That's why we have an "autumn" or "winter" tag which from my search, fit enough these cases. If we have no tree visible, then no need to have a "tree" tag, just "falling leaves", and I really don't think that "falling leaves" refers to leaves already on the ground. And when you see a pack of leaves, but not falling, then it's a "tree".wrexness wrote:What about autumn time pictures where trees do not have leaves? Or pine trees which never have leaves? Or images that show falling leaves, but no trees are visible? Though the correlation between the two would be strong, there are too many occasions where "leaves" would be independent from trees.
As for "falling leaves", this makes it vague as it relates to images with leaves on the ground, but no currently falling leaves are being shown.
The point is we don't need a tag to describe a tree, be it with leaves or not. Falling leaves on the other hand can be useful since aside of autumn, there are other season when they can fall.
In the case of that image, you have leaves that are neither falling nor on a tree. Such a situation would not be covered with just 'tree' and 'falling leaves' tags. Whether there are enough images on the board to warrant such a distinction is a whole different matter, but I'm just pointing the situation out.
Also, I was responding to you and Niney at once. Most of my examples were just against making this hypothetical 'leaves' tag a child of tree. Sorry about the confusion. ^^;