<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Mo., 22. Feb. 2021 um 14:37 Uhr schrieb Vincent van Duijnhoven <<a href="mailto:vvanduijnhoven@outlook.com">vvanduijnhoven@outlook.com</a>>:<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 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="gmail-m_-3259075568604915076LPlnk141160" target="_blank">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></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>while it would work well on a semantic level, I believe "shrub", "scrub" and "shrubs" are very similar and might easily be confused. <br></div><div> </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 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">
"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.". </span><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 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">I personally wouldn't add exact
height definitions in the definition</span></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>if it is not woody (specific low growing bamboo), it would be "grass", or not? (I am not a botanic, as you may see from this sentence). I would not add a height definition either, but I believe it would be crucial to distinguish this new tag from "natural=scrub", and to specify how exactly it should be applied. Could I add it to a surface where both, grass and shrubs are growing? Can I walk over it? Step through them between the bushes, or would it be too dense and I should regard it as an obstacle which I would avoid at all costs?</div><div>Is it a feature you would expect to be tagged in a garden or urban park, in plains, in the jungle?<br></div><div>What about spines/thorns? What do we use for bramble? <br></div><div><br></div><div>Is scrub the same as thicket, coppice and covert?<br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote">brush?</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div>Martin<br></div></div>