<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body vlink="#551A8B" text="#000000" link="#0B6CDA" bgcolor="#CCCCCC"
alink="#EE0000">
<p><font face="Verdana">Vincent I appreciate you try to simplify the
definition. However it takes us back to the previous discussions
that there was no common ground to justify creating a separate
top level value, neither in natural, neither in landcover keys.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">How does this shortened version make the
difference clear between scrub and shrubs. You deleted the
human intervention aspect, which as far I see it, was the
initial justification to create a separate value in the first
place. So if I read this definition how should I determine the
difference between the long time existing scrub and the new
shrubs ? Instead of filling in and clarifying to avoid "grey"
zone definition you increased it.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">By deleting the height criteria, not just
from scrub and shrubs but also from heath, how can you explain a
common mapper or a scientist what makes one different from the
other? So if I stand in front of a large area of heather
growing up to my knees, how should I decide if this is heath or
scrub or shrubs ?</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Same with wood or trees. I stand in front
of a 10m high thicket, how should I call it ? If I ask my 8 year
old daughter she calls it a large bush, however the centre of
the thicket is a natural grown tree with a trunk of 0.5m wide.
You tell me, I don't know. On top of that, in scientific
studies, all landcover studies it is the most distinctive
criterium to distinguish scrub and shrubs from trees or wood.
Are we simply going to ignore that ?<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">I am not saying my proposed improvement is
perfect, lot's of room for improvement, but I don't think
shortening, deleting key criteria is going to help us find a
consensus.</font></p>
<p><br>
<font face="Verdana">
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Example for our German speaking community:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratification_(vegetation)#/media/File:Stockwerke_wald.png">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratification_(vegetation)#/media/File:Stockwerke_wald.png</a>
and for the English speaking friends: "</font><font
face="Verdana">The vertical stratification of a community is
determined largely by the life forms of plants their size ,
branching and leaves which is influenced by the vertical
gradient of light. Vertical classification of vegetation in a
forest showing the tree, shrub and herb layers and the forest
floor", and yes, wikipedia is not the only resource I
contacted. So for scrub definitively, we need stratification.
For shrubs, as being the human intervened version of it, we need
stratification. For the common mapper, non botanists, non
gardeners, we need stratification, we need to include the human
intervention criteria.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Feel free, and please, convince us of the
contrary.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">I don't see any problem both in
pronunciation and in writing between scrub and shrubs to
distinguish one from the other. Anyway, maybe it is a good thing
so users, ones they want to start using it, will go to our wiki
to find out what is the difference, being the human intervention
criteria... ?</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>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/02/2021 22:33, Vincent van
Duijnhoven wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:AM8PR04MB73454CE140D5E93278380FBBD5809@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);">
This definition seems also fine to me</div>
<div style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">
<blockquote style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">
<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." </font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana"><br>
</font>It wasn't intended to include a path in the definition,
it can be ignored.</p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">
<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>
<div><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>.</font></div>
</blockquote>
<div><font size="+1"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="+1"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font size="+1">A valid argument though cat and car are
different things. Scrub, shrub and shrubs are different,
similar words for almost the same thing. Without wiki, are
the values the descriptive enough?</font></div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">
<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>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><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><font size="+1">@Martin:</font></p>
</blockquote>
<p><font size="+1"><br>
</font></p>
<blockquote style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">
<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>
</blockquote>
<div>Kind regards,</div>
<div>Vincent</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>