Quote Originally Posted by torstan View Post
I think both have there advantages. I guess the question really is whether the players need to know the extent of the tree's canopy? I can think of no situation where this is necessary. Therefore the tree canopy is just pretty, not useful. What is useful is knowing where the stream is, or a rock that can be used for cover, or difficult terrain. From that point of view I like the first of the two you posted. I can see that the tree canopy is there, but I can also see what the terrain is doing. I don't see a need for outlining the canopy.
You're right - typically the exact location of the canopy isn't too relevant to an encounter. However, the encounter I'm putting this map together for has a bunch of goblins hiding the in branches of the trees, waiting to ambush the players as they set up camp for the night. So, I anticipate that the players will want to know how far out the branches extend. Of course, this is part of the utility of these computer maps - it's trivially easy for me to adjust it to my needs.

Quote Originally Posted by torstan View Post
The tree on the left has a 20' wide trunk and the tree on the right has a 10' wide trunk, if these are 5' squares. That seems spectacularly large for any tree I've ever seen. Not sure if this was intentional.
They're intended to be old oak trees, but, at these sizes, they would also work as, say, weeping willows, or even small baobab trees.

Thanks for the comments!