<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#333399" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">Thank you for the confirmation Brian. I
agree the attribute "managed" could work, especially because it
is linked to the top level key natural. The wiki page of
"managed" doesn't provide much detail but suggests additional
values like grazing and can contain earlier suggestions like
slashing and burning. On the discussion page there was an
opinion that "managed" describes a process, not it's usage,
which I fully agree.<br>
So it's why I suggested to use "denotation" as an additional
optional attribute, which can further specify it's "use" or
"usage" or "purpose". There is obvious a need since it is
discussed and one of the primary needs of the proposal writer.
I agree that "decorative", or in this case "landscaping" is not
a process but the result of it, to achieve it's purpose. Much
similar as "denotation" is now used for similar natural=tree to
denote them as ornamental, landmark etc... similar it allows the
mapper to denote the scrub as decorative, landmark or whatever,
independent if it is managed or not. Both attributes would be
optional of course. <br>
Additionally, even in the field it can be often hard to
determine how or if the scrub is managed, still managed or not.
Determining if it is decorative, a landscaping feature or other
denotation, although often still in many cases subjective, can
more easily be obtained from locals or indications like a sign
or similar<br>
What is your opinion about that or do you have other suggestions
?</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Greetings, <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Bert Araali</font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 14/02/2021 01:45, Brian M.
Sperlongano wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx3TQVZCGKPRVTDPLNdi5u1LaJtbTYvf0fQPxV-ZXYcr3A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">I think the general notion that we could tag these
landscaping areas as natural=scrub has merit. There is
certainly an inherent advantage in using a tag that already
renders as well.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There is still a need to distinguish between
manicured/groomed/landscaped areas and simply natural
scrubland. The "managed" key seems like it could work for
that. The current description for managed=yes is "landscape
or signs indicate management but kind is unclear" which is not
quite on the mark, and so I wonder if a new value of "managed"
is needed in these cases, or if managed=yes should cover the
case.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Certainly a render that cares to draw these differently
would want to have a way to tell landscaping apart from
scrubland.</div>
</div>
_____</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>