<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><font face="Verdana">I understand Vincent, but the approach to
lift just a part out of the definition doesn't help us to find a
consensus. That is why I included the definition and extensions
for all related natural and landcover tags which might interfere
or overlap with a new natural=shrubs or natural=shrubbery. What
was between the " was improvement of existing definitions, what
was outside the " additions to better diversify from other
natural and landcover values.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">As Martin said, heath does contain a height
to make it different. One can argue about "dwarf" was a good
choice here, same as one could argue if we should use a specific
number and measurement system to indicate the height. As I
said, what I proposed has lot's of room for improvement. One
could maybe better describe heights as f.i. knee-high for heath
and not higher than a 2 level building for scrub and shrub.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Peter's opinion is also very appealing
natural=greenery, however, without offending Peter, you are a
general mapper and in that context natural=greenery is a perfect
solution in my eyes, to be used as a general tag for any mix or
seasonally changing vegetation. However, as OSM evolves, there
is a growing need to map more details and micro-mapping
approaches. Much the same as there is general country mapping
but also topographic mapping and mapping practices for
individual parks, neighbourhoods and even plots. OSM allows
mapping in all those applications and I think we should provide
guidance in schemes that support all of them. <br>
In that context mapping individual trees, shrubs and bushes is
an approach I wouldn't discourage, and in these approaches there
is surely a need to map groups of these as areas as we do for
trees, as we do for grass and as we do for heath and scrub so
far. So your proposal should cater and justify this.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">That being said, I am still of the view that
the definition of shrubs or shrubbery needs inclusion of the
"human intervention" factor AND "height" factor, even asks us to
add these to the definitions of those natural and landcover tags
that didn't so far.</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Greetings,</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">Bert Araali<br>
</font></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/02/2021 13:28, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABPTjTBYgUKsAsVg1t24qTtTxuLq5vTpxvtc2OZ2DZ4HFixHxA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Here some recent examples, they are in the city the same
spot from different angles, i.e. in an environment heavily
shaped by human influence.</div>
<div><a href="https://ibb.co/VvGFNBH" moz-do-not-send="true">https://ibb.co/VvGFNBH</a></div>
<div><a href="https://ibb.co/w08WnMF" moz-do-not-send="true">https://ibb.co/w08WnMF</a></div>
<div><a href="https://ibb.co/vPSV1GN" moz-do-not-send="true">https://ibb.co/vPSV1GN</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is there something that would qualify for the shrubs tag? <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheerrs,<br>
</div>
<div>Martin<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</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>