<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#333399" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">Well noticed Vincent and appreciated
correction. Let's name it natural=shrub<u><b>s</b></u>. Sounds
perfect to me and fits in the overall tagging scheme. Sorry for
the confusion.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Greetings,</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Bert Araali</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/02/2021 16:33, Vincent van
Duijnhoven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:AM8PR04MB734557F86BC18711F07FE6C9D5819@AM8PR04MB7345.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
Thanks for the reply.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
According to wiki, natural=shrub already exists to map
individual shrubs (just like natural=tree): <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=shrub"
id="LPlnk141160" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=shrub</a> .
So, if at all shrubbery should be renamed, it should be renamed
to natural=shrubs in my opinion.</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
About the definition, I didn't knew a better way to define the
tag. This definition by you seems also fine to me:
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
display: inline !important;">
"a group of shrubs or bushes, characterized by stems with
mostly a woody appearance and branches appearing at or close
to the ground. In some cases the stem(s) are not woody like
f.i. in most cacti and some low growing bamboos.". I
personally wouldn't add exact height definitions in the
definition. I would prefer to supply some images and text on
which the mapper can decide whether something is heath,
shrubs|shrubbery or tree|forest|wood.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
display: inline !important;"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
display: inline !important;">Kind regards,</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255);">
<span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana;
font-size: 15px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);
display: inline !important;">Vincent</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size: 11pt;"
face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000"><b>Van:</b> Bert
-Araali- Van Opstal <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:bert.araali.afritastic@gmail.com"><bert.araali.afritastic@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>Verzonden:</b> maandag 22 februari 2021 14:10<br>
<b>Aan:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org"><tagging@openstreetmap.org></a><br>
<b>Onderwerp:</b> Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -
shrubbery</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">Dear all,</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">I applaud Vincent for doing his very best to
try to find a compromise for the different objections and
improvements proposed so far.</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">I think we are very close to reaching a
general consensus but it still needs some fine-tuning to
achieve this. I carefully watched the first discussion
yesterday, sitting back, analysing and researching all the
arguments brought forward.<br>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">1.<b> Create and justify a new top level key
value for these features ?</b> I think I was the first
one who brought up the suggestion to let these features
reside under scrub, both to cater for the scientific user as
the common mapper. Additionally arguments were to keep the
structure and use of our natural tagging - with a limited
number of top-level distinct values and detailing through
attribution.<br>
To me, and correct me if I am wrong, the majority here, it
is generally accepted that this is such a common type of
vegetation and commonly referred to in different terms, that
Vincent's proposal justifies creating a new natural
top-level value group. It doesn't need further discussion
and it will not stop me from supporting this proposal.</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">2. <b>What is the most commonly accepted and
suitable word in English for the new top-level value in
natural?</b> In this I tried to understand Vincent's
justification in the proposal and in regard to previous
discussions. The proposal had some history as it moved from
bush or bushes, to shrub. Was there a good reason to
introduce a new term "shrubbery" in regard to the previous
"shrub". In my honest opinion no, unless Vincent had also
in mind to use a term "shrubbery", which describes very
distinctive garden practices in traditional English
gardening, to link the features he is targetting to
gardening or "decorative" use as such, trying to avoid
discussion? This doesn't seem to work.<br>
When I look back to the history of the proposal, there was
good grounds to choose shrub instead of bush as that is the
most commonly used term in the scientific world and is
understood and used by most communities using English. It
didn't have much objection in the previous discussion if we
agreed on 1, in the contrary it is a good indication that in
many cases it can cause some overlap with natural=scrub
since scrub also contains shrubs, an overlap or gap which we
should try to reduce with a more distinctive detailed
definition.</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">So in my opinion, best to leave it
natural=shrub.</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">3.<b> Is a clear definition provided that
minimises the overlap with other natural tags ?</b> In my
opinion no, some improvements are needed. In all good
intentions Vincent tried, but using some objective terms,
like "wild" or "decorative", and not clear understood
subjective terms like "cultivation or cultivated land".<br>
3a. Use of the term "wild". I asked myself, what is
considered "wild". A shrub that grows in a natural way, but
shaped on a regular basis by humans, no discussion, no one
can call that wild. A shrub that is planted by humans, but
for various reasons after planting, not shaped by humans.
We enter the grey zone, some might consider it wild because
it is and can continue it's growth in a natural way, some
might consider it not wild because humans might control it's
reproduction or spreading by removing seedlings, shoots and
seeds. Is scrub, that is confined by human intervention to
prevent it's uncontrolled spreading to be considered still
wild ? Is scrub where humans intervene to remove shrubs or
bushes or undergrowth no longer to be considered as wild,
and thus becomes shrub ? Is it in all cases viable for a
mapper in the field to determine if there was never human
intervention so that it be scrub ? I think the description
of both scrub and shrub should not contain the word "wild".</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">3b. Use of the term "decorative". Many
people consider shrubs that are allowed to grow unobstructed
by human intervention as very decorative. More decorative as
the neatly trimmed shrubs because they prefer natural
growth. Some shrubs might even require to be grown naturally
to achieve the "decorative" purpose, f.i. to allow them to
flower. So when it is no flowering season are these plants
no longer considered decorative then ? Are they to be
consider as scrub depending on the season ? I think we
should avoid the term "decorative".<br>
3c. Cultivation or cultivated land. This is a quite clear
defined objective term: it applies to land or individual
plants who are worked upon by humans to produce crops or
fruits. Scrub, by definition can only be found on non
cultivated land. No doubt about it. However, patches of
scrub can be found in cultivated land, and any user should
be allowed to map them indepently of their size. If the
mapper or scientist consider that patch as significant to ap
it that way, it's fine. Small patches are mostly there for
a good reason, maybe the scrub contains a protected species,
provides a biome or refuge for wildlife, has a cultural
significance, has a historical significance... Should we not
map it as scrub because the main land it grows within is
cultivated, situated in farmland or an orchard ? <br>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">A single plant might be cultivated, f.i. an
apple tree or a berry bush or shrub in a garden, or on
public land. Is it suitable then to use the term cultivation
to define natural=shrub as a major feature. Is mulching to
be considered as practice to consider a lnd as cultivated,
same as f.i. weeding. No, because in the case of the shrubs
we like to define, the mulching and weeding is not intended
to harvest crops or fruits from the shrubs.<br>
So in the existing definition of scrub I would keep it, but
in shrub, to distinguish it from scrub, it is not the best
choice.</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">4. <b>What (subjective) classification
principle is the best suited for OSM</b> ? I am not a
scientist neither a botanist or whatever but I made the
effort to browse to the internet and read some studies about
vegetation classification principles used for mapping
purposes. I wasn't able to find one single principle that
covers our needs but did identify some common criteria:
height of the vegetation and it's appearance. Height is a
general distinction that is used already to define heath and
to distinguish heath from scrub. Height is not clearly
defined as a criteria to distinguish grassland, as we all
now some grasslands contain grasses which can grow up to
significant heights like the dominant elephant grass here in
Africa. They are distinguished by describing there
appearance. Same applies to distinguish wood, generally
regarded as tree coverage, where the height criteria might
not be enough to distinguish it from scrub (scrub contains
small trees and stunted trees), so there is an additional
guidance to it's appearance.<br>
What I definitively still don't like about this proposal is
that it tries to limit the group of vegetation we should
consider as shrub by putting limiting criteria in it's
definition, and additionally discourages the use of
attribution tags like with scrub=* or in this case the need
of shrub=* which allow data consumers and mappers to further
attribute and map and use the data for their specific
interests or needs. It is a principle which is slowly
getting ground in other tags to avoid getting an
uncontrolled group of endless top-level keys or values which
create a mess, discourages and decreases the usage of our
wiki etc... Also we should avoid to incorporate any
additional classification that limits or discriminates. I am
thinking like including a term like "it is mostly found
inside urban environments". So as a mapper or as a local
community I should not regard my shrubs in my garden, on my
farm, as a nomad the shrubs I planted and maintain around my
water holes as not being shrubs, but scrubs ? Do we
consider these as not civilised environments because by
defintion it must be considered scrub that is always
"wild". The opposite, should we consider patches of
remaining scrub, or even patches of shrubs in parks, gardens
etc... in cities, as not to be considered anymore as scrub
but rather as shrub just because of the single fact they
grow, still wild and natural in a city ?<br>
I do think that in the limited number of examples given at
this stage and maybe the limited number of cases identified
so far, the proposal should provide it as optional tagging
with some guidance on what we consider as good practice to
assign as values and encourage users to extend the proposal
or the wiki page after approval to add more examples, more
values to the attribution keys. I am already thinking about
examples like a field or decorative groups of cacti, bamboo,
all to be considered as scrub or shrub and probably miss on
many more examples. Attribution keys are very OK to be
extended with subjective criteria, different classification
criteria, in essence any value that a user see fit or
considers as significant enough.<br>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><br>
</p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">So, after all of this being said in my
opinion this propsal has great potential for success when:</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">1. Creation of a new natural top value is
justified, I support it;</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">2. I prefer the term natural=shrub since it
has most common ground and has a general English meaning
that complies most with the vegetation group we are
targetting;</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">3. + 4. For shrub maybe: "Is a group of
shrubs or bushes, characterised by stems with mostly a woody
appearance and branches appearing at or close to the ground.
In some cases the stem(s) are not woody like f.i. in most
cacti and some low growing bamboos." This tag should only be
used for vegetation, with this distinctive appearance, that
shows a top foliage not higher then 5m? and not lower then
20 cm ? Similar woody vegetation lower then shrub should be
tagged with natural=heath. Vegetation showing a higher
foliage is to be mapped separately as individual trees, tree
rows or natural=wood or landcover=trees.</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">For scrub: existing +
</font><font face="Verdana">This tag should only be used for
vegetation, with this distinctive appearance and containing
small or stunted tress,, and/or shrubs and/or bushes, that
shows a top foliage not higher then 5m? and not lower then
20 cm ?</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">How to distinguish scrub from shrub:</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">Scrub: (this is existing)
</font><br>
<font face="Verdana">Maintained, cultivated areas of
landscaping or shrubbery (this usage is controversial), I
propose to change to: When scrub is found where human
intervention is clear to influence it's interior growth or
propagation to serve it's appearance to be more attractive
to humans or to control it's growth to not interfere with
other human activities, like landscaping, gardening, in or
on cultivated land, natural = shrub should be used instead.
If the human activity is aimed at controlling it's
propagation at it's boundaries only or to keep it in it's
indigenous natural state, f.i. by clearing invasive species,
it is to be tagged as natural=scrub.<br>
Of course I propose a similar distinction statement for
shrubs.</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">Hope this helps,</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">Greetings,</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana">Bert Araali<br>
</font></p>
<p style="margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;"><font
face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<div class="x_moz-cite-prefix">On 21/02/2021 22:37, Vincent van
Duijnhoven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);">
Based on the discussion on landuse=shrubs|bush, I created a
new proposal for shrubbery. This proposal proposes the tag
natural=shrubbery with as definition: "An area of cultivated
decorative shrubs or bushes"</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<a
href="https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FProposed_features%2Fshrubbery&data=04%7C01%7C%7C6eda70be692b493fa60d08d8d733a070%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637495964022326990%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=OBjvqvet4nhW8zTyKmA4yoKakFcGP3Z1Pjdh9B%2BVcM0%3D&reserved=0"
originalsrc="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shrubbery"
shash="KpuiyVYYFY+0O9PH1Y0wDDRmpXkhD95vQXzA2eZV8avCETBOyDLPmhhLVzghAg6VgCaDmIxa7F7qdbOPm6Xxuy8GpKFEehf5jNPBlKZRxWJ/OE1jtmryqQbENRm5gZE2hu04aZ9bAM7gov5g0N3/HUo3KmiHE6H/q4paIdJ1Ci0="
id="LPlnk" style="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shrubbery</a></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span style="font-family:monospace,monospace;
font-size:14px">Kind regards,</span></div>
<div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<span style="font-family:monospace,monospace;
font-size:14px">Vincent</span></div>
<br>
<fieldset class="x_mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="x_moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="x_moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="x_moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftagging&data=04%7C01%7C%7C6eda70be692b493fa60d08d8d733a070%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637495964022336942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=sqf6%2BuPh2muJ%2FjzK0%2B9aZKFs5Pk2SGHab%2FkD%2BmZFRyg%3D&reserved=0" originalsrc="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" shash="UFnJLSOUjDKru6zsAfR9TZvkPmjjMCDBi675yWHaWdOCndYbAs9g6dkFgcq8zRSMVTGXXDXuzZO/tB5FP0maCaX3sRWoSyRztIMzPuQIokGW8da2Np2XAeO7EcIebUHzBPozhsR9h3uY7u1PW1l/OAQeRDCq83jA57JANKG8d58=" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>