<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#333399" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<pre>><i> <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse=bush">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/landuse=bush</a>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Definition: An area of bushes on cultivated land and in the built environment, often used for decorative purposes or to fill space and where barrier=hedge does not apply.
</i>><i>
</i>
</pre>
<p><i><i>My first remark concerns the 'landuse' title of this
thread: in the thread you refer to the key value 'bush', the
provided link however redirects to your proposal with the key
value 'shrub'. So kindly express what the intentions are:
'bush' or 'shrub'.</i></i></p>
<p><i><i>Secondly I oppose to use the term bush. It has a broad and
different meaning in Africa and Australia: see <a
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush</a>
and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bush">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_bush</a>.
On top the definition is completely contradicting with the
proposals intention: on wikipedia and commonly used by a large
part of the world, 'the bush' is </i></i><i><i>"synonymous
with <i><a href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/backwoods"
class="extiw" title="wikt:backwoods">backwoods</a></i> or
<i><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinterland"
title="Hinterland">hinterland</a></i>, referring to a
natural undeveloped area", where you propose to use it
specifically for "</i></i><i>cultivated land and in the built
environment". I fear this is going to lead to a lot of
confusion and misuse of the tag. Many people will start tagging
natural features with landuse=bush instead of the already
commonly used landuse=scrub and landuse=heath.</i></p>
<p><i>I agree largely with the comments from </i><a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Kovposch"
title="User:Kovposch">Kovposch</a> on the proposals discussion
page
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landuse%3Dshrubs">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landuse%3Dshrubs</a>).
Since they are not repeated in this talk forum allow me to
summarize and further support his solution:</p>
<p>1 use of natural instead of landuse: .<tt dir="ltr"
class="mw-content-ltr"
style="background:#EEF;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><bdi
style="white-space:nowrap"><a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural"
title="Key:natural">natural</a></bdi>=*</tt> has no
implications over whether something is maintained/made by humans,
it (roughly) means that it is plant life or a natural evolved
feature. If you look at it's wiki page it even states "including
ones that have been modified or created by humans.".
Unfortunately, there is already opposition against the use of
natural=scrub for this purpose since on the wiki page it says
'Uncultivated land covered with shrubs, bushes or stunted trees'.
Now this is the only case where the wiki explicitly states the
land needs to be 'uncultivated'. To my opinion an unfortunate
mistake. The natural tag defines the type of the natural feature,
not it's use, management or maintenance. So I propose to remove
the 'uncultivated' requirement from the wiki description of scrub.</p>
<p>2 Next it would be absolutely clear and appropriate to use
natural=scrub on cultivated and maintained land, as by the way is
already largely done on many micro-mapped areas. You can further
define or detail by adding the key managed=* (<a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:managed">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:managed</a>).
Although it is not widely used it is an approved key. The values
can be extended with more 'non-western' values commonly used like
'slashing', 'burning'. <br>
This would allow to keep the already 'scrub' areas, many
micro-mapped on cultivated or maintained land like parks, golf
courses, nature reserves etc and I believe there is no need for a
new or adopted rendering. In many areas it is even hard to
determine, either from imagery or in the field, if and how the
scrub is maintained. Like in Africa bushes are mostly burned, even
in the villages, and in between the burnings they look quite
unmaintained and natural wild. Also there is a tendency in some
European countries to leave hedges and bushes grow in an almost
wild or natural state to support in the creation of habitats for
local fauna. All of that can be covered by more and detailed
values for the 'managed' key.</p>
<p>I am sure your intentions are good, especially as we move to more
detailed and micro-mapping on OSM. I want to express however
concerns about the state of our wiki. For most cases, even
'special' ones, a simple and clear solution can be found in the
existing tagging schemes. Instead of trying to introduce more keys
or values and tagging proposals it would help to improve the wiki,
add more examples and links between keys, to clarify and offer
possibilities for these 'specials' supported with pictures etc...
We should strive to keep tagging as simple as possible and improve
our documentation so we keep OSM accessible to all kinds of users.</p>
<p>I will add my comments also to the discussion page.<br>
</p>
<p>Kind regards,<br>
</p>
Bert Araali
</body>
</html>