<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"> P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} </style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<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">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 id="appendonsend"></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 face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size: 11pt;"><b>Van:</b> Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <bert.araali.afritastic@gmail.com><br>
<b>Verzonden:</b> maandag 22 februari 2021 14:10<br>
<b>Aan:</b> tagging@openstreetmap.org <tagging@openstreetmap.org><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="">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">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=">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>