<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#333399" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>To justify my proposed improvement of Vincent's definition I' de
like to repeat it the following 3 proposed/existing definitions:</p>
<p><font face="Verdana">For <b>natural=scrub</b> and <b>landcover=scrub</b>
(notice the singular, because the word scrub refers to a single
area containing a group of plants): </font><br>
<font face="Verdana"> "Is used to tag areas of uncultivated land
covered with shrubs, bushes or stunted trees. </font><br>
<font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana">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=shrubs 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. Typically the height of
the vegetation varies between approx. 0.5m and 5m (indicative,
not hard values) to distinguish it from <b>natural=heath</b>
and <b>natural=wood</b>.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">For <b>natural=shrubs</b> "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. <br>
</font><font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana"><font
face="Verdana">Shrub is in most cases found where human
intervention is obvious on the growth or propagation of the
vegetation. Examples are f.i. landscaping, gardening, in or
on cultivated land. If the human intervention is intended
just to control it's uncontrolled propagation at it's
boundaries or preserve the indigenous and/or natural
character of the vegetation in it's interior, for example by
clearing invasive species, natural=scrub should be used
instead. </font></font>A similar definition can be used for
<b>landcover=shrubs</b>. <b>Natural=shrub</b> or <b>natural=bush</b>
is used on a node for an individual plant in this group.<br>
</font><font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana">Typically the
height of the vegetation varies between approx. 0.5m and 5m
(indicative, not hard values) to distinguish it from <b>natural=heath</b>
and <b>natural=wood</b>.</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">For <b>natural=heath</b> "</font><font
face="Verdana">is used to map areas of <b>heath</b> or <b>heathland</b>:
a dwarf-shrub habitat, characterized by open, low-growing woody
vegetation, often dominated by plants of the Ericaceae
(Heather). See <span class="plainlinks" title="w:en: Heath"><a
rel="nofollow" class="external text"
href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Heath"><bdi>Heath</bdi></a></span>
on Wikipedia. The tag <tt dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"
style="background:#EEF;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><bdi
style="white-space:nowrap"><a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural"
title="Key:natural">natural</a></bdi>=<a
class="mw-selflink selflink"><bdi>heath</bdi></a></tt> can
be applied to any similar habitat worldwide. </font><font
face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana">Typically
this vegetation does not grow higher then 0.5m (indicative,
not hard value) to distinguish it from <b>natural=scrub</b>
and <b>natural=shrubs</b>.</font></font>"</font> </p>
<p><font size="+1" face="Arial">@Peter:</font></p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite"><font size="+1" face="Arial"><span>I agree
that consumers are unlikely to look for "shrubbery", but
that "shrubs" could be a useful value for landcover=*.</span></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1" face="Arial">I looked at many classification
systems, as you might well know many of them have different
classifications depending on the purpose they are mapped for. I
nearly all of them, who try to analyse landcover in countries,
the term scrub or scrubland is used. However, classification
systems trying to map smaller areas like f.I. in a smaller urban
context use shrub or shrubland. Even some renowned national
mapping classification systems just use shrub and abandoned
scrub.Example: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/rig/documents/integrated_inventory/FS_ExistingVEG_classif_mapping_TG_05.pdf">https://www.fs.fed.us/emc/rig/documents/integrated_inventory/FS_ExistingVEG_classif_mapping_TG_05.pdf</a>.</font></p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite"><font size="+1"><span>FWIW, I disagree
with the contention by @Vincent that a "shrubbery" MUST
contain a path. He cites wikipedia as his source, but IMHO
wikipedia is not infallible. I could envisage a garden
containing a lawn (managed grass), with a collection of
planted and managed shrubs beyond it, which would be called
a "shrubbery". I also see little point in mapping an area
in OSM to say that "in this area are some tended plants and
some paths", but not mapping the paths.</span></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1">True. But we would advise to tag shrubbery due to
it's controversy, by attribution as a specific form of shrub.
Any paths should be mapped separately as paths running through
the area tagged as <b>natural=shrubs</b> and <b>shrubs=shrubbery</b>.<br>
</font>
<blockquote type="cite"><font size="+1"><span>It is unfortunate
that "scrub" and "shrub" differ by only one letter, but we
manage to distinguish between a "car" and a "cat" ;-) </span></font></blockquote>
<font size="+1">Haha, very well said. But also consider that most
languages have no decent distinguished translation for
"shrubbery". Scrub is singular, as it describes a single area
or group of plants. Shrubs is plural and a keen mapper should be
informed and notice this difference.</font></p>
<p><font size="+1">@Martin:</font></p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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). </div>
</blockquote>
Very well noticed. Scientifically bamboos are grasses. However,
in many cases very distinctive from grasses, like in my region we
have large forest of just bamboos growing up to a height of 20m.
You wouldn't want to call them grass for a non-scientific mapper
do you ? In my opinion they deserve there own natural= tag just
as maybe cacti. However, try to limit our discussion to shrubs
now. SO bamboo and cacti, who don't necessarily have a woody stem
should be considered as grass, heath, shrub or scrub or wood
according to the height observed by the mapper.</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">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.</blockquote>
The height is not added to distinguish from natural=scrub, they
are exactly the same heights. They are to distinguish from the
next lower and higher, also mainly woody vegetation namely
natural=heath and natural=wood.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> Could I add it to a surface where both, grass and shrubs
are growing? </div>
</blockquote>
Of course, but you use the general consensus that the vegetation
creating the top foliage, covering most of the land, determines
the main tag. This applies for all natural tags and vegetation in
landcover tagging. F.I. 1 acre of grassland with 2x 5m crown
diameter trees is not called natural=wood. An area of scree with
two 20cm patches of grass is not called natural=grassland.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>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>
</blockquote>
We don't say anything about it, just refer to barrier=hedge. If
it has the very particular function to obstruct free movement AND
it has a predominantly linear character, barrier=hedge should be
used instead. barrier=hedge is also used for linearly aligned
shrubs or bushes that have a boundary or border function. However
this is in the "grey" zone. Looking at it's primary
characteristics, as the hedge is to be considered to be mapped as
a physical barrier (for movement) due to it's controversy support
of not being mapped as an area I would propose to use
natural=shrubs. The opposite is also true, we don't actively
support using natural=shrubs for ways, you should use
barrier=hedge instead because a barrier can also be intended to
preserve privacy f.i. or as a low growing hedge to achieve an
aesthetic border effect.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Is it a feature you would expect to be tagged in a garden
or urban park, in plains, in the jungle?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Both scrub and shrubs may be used. Depends on the human
intervention of the vegetation. Garden or urban park: will be
mostly shrubs but we do not disapprove to use scrub when it is an
island of pristine scrub or maybe purposely planted by humans to
provide an untouched an free growing natural environment as a
patch or even a whole garden or urban park. The human
intervention on the growth and propagation is the key
distinguishing factor here. Plains and in the jungle will in most
cases be natural=scrub although you might find islands of shrub
within them, based ion the same amount of human intervention.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>What about spines/thorns? What do we use for bramble? <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Spines thorns are also found on trees, heath. If you want to
specifically warn someone about their presence you can use the
hazard tagging. Bramble mostly grows up to a height above 0.5m (as
the single branches pile up). So=shrub unless it is a species that
is maintained and consistently stays below 0.5m then =heath. The
height definition becomes the distinguishing key factor. Also fro
bramble you could use the hazard to warn for the spikes or
thorns. In both case you could aslo add shrubs=bramble or
heath=bramble or use the species or taxon tagging to be more
specific.</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">Is scrub the same as thicket, coppice and
covert?<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">brush?</div>
</blockquote>
Depending on the height, a thicket would be natural=scrub or
natural=wood. <br>
Coppice very clear natural=shrubs because it's lower then 5m and
requires continuous human intervention. I would add
shurbs=coppice.<br>
Covert see thicket.<br>
Brush grows below trees so the top foliage determines the tagging
of the area will be natural=wood and/or landcover=trees.</p>
<p>@ Peter Elderson:</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">a shrub is one plant (natural=shrub)</blockquote>
Correct, or natural=bush.</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">natural=shrubs (or landcover=shrubs) would
mean a group or an area of shrubs.</blockquote>
Correct.</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">natural=scrub would be wider, maybe
managed but less manicured area of shrubs and low stunted trees
on e.g. a grassy or sandy ground. </blockquote>
Forget the ground. We say nothing about the ground except, that
natural=scrub, by it's nature and pure definition can only grow on
uncultivated land, but so does shrubs. Mulching or weeding does
not make a land cultivated though. Cultivated land is land on
hich vegetation is grown to produce crops or fruits for human
consumption. Less manicured is confusing, the inner part is NOT
manicured at all, except of some minor interference of removing
invasive species or maybe to avoid it's uncontrolled propagation.
At the boundaries it can be maintained, f.i. clipping cutting only
at the borders to prevent extensive overgrowth of a highway f.i.,
border stones or other confinement to prevent uncontrolled
spreading of shoots can all be applied to scrub as well as shrubs.</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">The old hedge area could maybe qualify as
a shrubbery.</blockquote>
It could however if you find it convenient or significantly wide
to be mapped as an area and it has not a clearly distinctive
barrier function we would advise to use natural=shrub for areas.
It is to be mapped as a way it will always be barrier=hedge,
natural=shrubs does not support ways as linear features. This
approach also bypasses the rendering issue in OSMcarto.</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>However, when a "left over" piece of land with no apparent
primary use, or rather a mix of presumed uses, is covered
with vegetation, with no predominant type, it's just greenery.
Can be scrub now, flowers might dominate in summer, grasses
grow hip-high when the flowers are gone, or they plow, mow and
redesign it every other year. Then it's landcover=greenery or
natural=greenery. </div>
<div>That's what the Dutch call "gemeentegroen" (municipal
greenery), often confused with village_green but that's an
entirely different feature. </div>
</blockquote>
I am not that familiar with the Dutch term "gemeentegroen" but if
the area is consisting of dominantly shrubs and/or bushes I would
use natural=shrubs. It is more specific. Additional significant
trees can be mapped as individual nodes with natural=tree.
Greenery is OK but more general, consider natural=shrubs as a
means of providing more detail but you are free how to tag it in
regard to your local context. Anyway, all of these are guidelines,
not roles, you are free to tag however you want.<br>
<br>
Greetings to all,</p>
<p>Bert Araali<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 22/02/2021 20:05, Peter Neale via
Tagging wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1468308168.2005202.1614013541378@mail.yahoo.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="ydp6b90b097yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:times
new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:16px;">
<div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span>Thank you, @Bert
Araali,</span><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span>I agree that
consumers are unlikely to look for "shrubbery", but that
"shrubs" could be a useful value for landcover=*.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span>FWIW, I disagree with
the contention by @Vincent that a "shrubbery" MUST contain
a path. He cites wikipedia as his source, but IMHO
wikipedia is not infallible. I could envisage a garden
containing a lawn (managed grass), with a collection of
planted and managed shrubs beyond it, which would be
called a "shrubbery". I also see little point in mapping
an area in OSM to say that "in this area are some tended
plants and some paths", but not mapping the paths.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false"><span>It is unfortunate
that "scrub" and "shrub" differ by only one letter, but we
manage to distinguish between a "car" and a "cat" ;-) </span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="ydp6b90b097signature">
<div style="font-family:new times, serif;font-size:16px;">
<div>Regards,</div>
<div dir="ltr">Peter</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div id="ydpe6705dd6yahoo_quoted_4414743437"
class="ydpe6705dd6yahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;"><br>
<div>
<div id="ydpe6705dd6yiv7318905846">
<div class="ydpe6705dd6yiv7318905846yqt0068931094"
id="ydpe6705dd6yiv7318905846yqtfd36572">
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="ydpe6705dd6yqt0068931094"
id="ydpe6705dd6yqtfd05379">_______________________________________________<br
clear="none">
Tagging mailing list<br clear="none">
<a shape="rect" href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br
clear="none">
<a shape="rect"
href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank" fg_scanned="1"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br
clear="none">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</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>