<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 12:05, Paul Allen <<a href="mailto:pla16021@gmail.com">pla16021@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 10:46, Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" target="_blank">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div><br>
Back to landcover=greenery. <br>
Is there a proposal for this? <br></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
landcover=plants looks like a better tag to me. <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Better, because not ot all plants stay green all year round.</div><div><br></div><div>However, it doesn't cover all common situations. Grass and trees are better tagged as such,</div><div>even though they're both plants. Better tagged as such because they are visually distinctive,</div><div>and part of the reason for mapping details like this is because those details may aid</div><div>navigation.</div><div><br></div><div>I'd argue that the deprecated landcover=shrubs ought to be revived as part of this exercise.</div><div>There are obvious visual differences between grass, bedding plants, shrubs and trees.</div><div>Using natural=shrub doesn't cut it if you want to map a shrubbery like this:</div><div><a href="https://goo.gl/maps/LwNZ2Sk1X8fKxt3j9" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/maps/LwNZ2Sk1X8fKxt3j9</a></div><div>Admittedly, that looks more like a hedge with area than most shrubberies, but it's not a</div><div>match for grass, trees or scrub (it's far more kempt than scrub) and it's not a good match</div><div>for plants. There's no way I could map that as individual shrubs (I can't even tell where</div><div>each one is when I'm standing next to them). Many shrubberies have space to walk between</div><div>the individual shrubs, but I couldn't find a picture of one of those.</div><div><br></div><div>Could we use landcover=plants for it? The acid test is giving somebody directions. "Turn</div><div>left after you go past some plants" vs "turn left after you go past some shrubs." Which would</div><div>you use here?</div><div><br></div><div>Of course, we could have landcover=plants + plants=shrubs, but then we have to justify</div><div>not switching to landcover=plants + plants=grass, landcover=plants + plants=trees, etc.<br></div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div>Paul</div><div><br></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a></blockquote><div><br></div><div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 12:05, Paul Allen <<a href="mailto:pla16021@gmail.com">pla16021@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div>Using natural=shrub doesn't cut it if you want to map a shrubbery like this:</div><div><a href="https://goo.gl/maps/LwNZ2Sk1X8fKxt3j9" target="_blank">https://goo.gl/maps/LwNZ2Sk1X8fKxt3j9</a></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'd use barrier=hedge for that one. Yes it's strictly ornamental rather than a livestock barrier, but AFAIK we have no proper distinction for that.</div><div><br></div><div>-Alan<br></div>
</div></div>
</div></div></div>