<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body text="#333399" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">Dear all,</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><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><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><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><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><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><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><font face="Verdana">So in my opinion, best to leave it
natural=shrub.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><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><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><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><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><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><br>
</p>
<p><font face="Verdana">So, after all of this being said in my
opinion this propsal has great potential for success when:</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">1. Creation of a new natural top value is
justified, I support it;</font></p>
<p><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><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><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><font face="Verdana">How to distinguish scrub from shrub:</font></p>
<p><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><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Hope this helps,</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<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/02/2021 22:37, Vincent van
Duijnhoven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:AM8PR04MB73455D763411EA93AE3C814AD5829@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);">
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://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shrubbery"
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="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>