apple tree should imply apple

apple tree → apple

I’d say you can have an apple tree without apples, but at the same time how else would you really know it’s an apple tree. 🤔
 
On the other hand, it could be one of those “while technically correct, there’s not much point in adding it” cases.
 
 
I am conflicted

Well I think if a tree is shown having apples on it, it is an apple tree, and if it’s not an apple tree and just a regular one without apples, then it can’t be tagged as an “apple tree”

I dunno. I think even bare trees on AJ’s farm would end up getting tagged with it since we already know what they are. Whether that actually comes up in the images (or ends up mattering much) is another story.

I think if a bare tree has the evidence in the image that it is an apple tree, like an Apple family member near it or something, then it could be tagged as an apple tree, but then if it doesn’t have apples on it then the tag “apple” isn’t required. However, that goes into more detailed circumstances, and the majority of the “apple tree” tag would be that there are apples in the image. So if there’s an apple tree with evidence of it being so but no apples, then I guess users could manually remove them.

@MellowinsomeYellow  
Yeah. Sounds good enough to me.
 
Done