<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
</head>
<body>
<p>I admire your persistence. The effort you put in this proposal is
above average and shows your dedication and support for OSM.</p>
<p>Sorry for starting a new sub-thread, but it seemed appropriate to
express as subjective as possible my comments on the large content
in this proposal rather then biased personal opinions and the
reactions on those as in the initial opening.</p>
<p>This mail might be rather long, but long proposals ask for long
answers, out of respect for the large amount of effort put into
it.<br>
</p>
<p>Abandoning the concept of a new top level tag surely has my
preference.<br>
Still, some issues raised by me and others in the previous
versions still persist.</p>
<p>1. semantics: "cultivated", used in a context of "growing"
applies to the land or in a context referencing the land and crops
or plants grown upon it as a group. It is used in some definitions
across OSM correctly. You came close to a much better and correct
semantic term: manicured, it might be the gem we are all looking
for. It is a common term used in gardening and the shaping of
vegetation in general. Any English dictionary can be referenced to
support this. So I suggest to use "manicured" as the attribute key
instead of "cultivated". Confusion throughout the proposal as you
use "landscaped", "cultivation" and "manicured" in the same
context to refer to the practice and vegetation you are really
targetting: "landscaped" refers to land AND vegetation;
"cultivation" refers to land OR land with it's vegetation in a
grouped context; "manicured" refers to vegetation ONLY. Please
don't mix them.<br>
</p>
<p>2. scope: <br>
2a. you describe it to be used as attribute tags (you use the term
sub-tags which is fine for me) for natural=scrub. It can be used
however on a much larger scope of OSM top level tags. Essentially
they can be used on any tag applicable to vegetation.
natural=shrub, natural=heath, natural=grass, natural=tree_row,
landuse=forest; barrier=hedge etc... In order to get support and
approval for this proposal and not make the scope to wide, you
describe this as intentional. I fear however this will have the
opposite effect as it is strongly related to f.i. natural=shrub.
Why not be more bold and describe and test it's more general
applicability? I am resistive to any proposals that try to address
or invent tagging schemes that are generally applicable, to
address specific or niche needs. It grows the need for the use of
namespaced keys instead of more general applicable simple keys.<br>
2b. Manicured goes beyond a practice by humans. Also animals
manicure vegetation for the purpose of producing food, protection
of their nesting places, and even decorative purposes. Often the
difference is not obvious for some mappers. To avoid ambiguity and
support subjective verifiability, I would prefer a definition that
avoids terms referencing only human practices.</p>
<p>3. gender neutrality: the use of "man" is generally discouraged.
Use "humans" instead. <br>
</p>
<p>4. barrier=hedge. Despite you say that you want to limit the
scope, you include a new sub-tag scrub:density, with the intention
to make barrier:hedge less contentious. I am afraid you are going
to achieve the opposite. First of all this is a completely
different issue, not related at all to the shape or anicure of
vegetation. It's a rendering related issue, we don't tag for the
renderer. Secondly, even if you disagree with the fact that it is
purely a rendering issue, you propose a tag that is not
specifically targetted at areas and highly subjective. The
appendix made it clear what you intend to tag. Density in regard
if a barrier can be safely passed. Density is not deterministic to
express this. A thorny hedge or hedge made of toxic plants can be
very effective as a safe non-passable barrier, even at low
density, yet very ineffective for privacy. A very dense hedge made
of vegetation with very flexible branches easy and safely to pass
but being very effective for privacy. <br>
The choice to use a similar namespaced key for this like existing
wood:density and scrub:density seems to avoid ambiguity, but I
think it's the contrary because they originate and are used in a
different context.<br>
</p>
<p>5. appendix. <br>
5a. You conclude that natural=tree is pre-dominantly used for
trees planted by humans. This might be the case in your area but I
doubt this can be used as a global justification. In areas where I
map it is most dominantly used for trees that have grown naturally
and often very old. They are the remains, wherever located
currently of natural untouched landscapes and often protected by
legislation, so the opposite of your statement.<br>
5b. The rendering as an area in Carto is not related to
barrier=hedge only. The same issue applies to barrier=wall. You
conclude that the motivation to do this by carto brakes rendering
of those barriers. Although this is true the key problem and
reason, of course to my analysis, is that bariier tags are out of
laziness often applied to areas which require different rendering,
like landuse and amenity tags. The issue is nt the tagging, but
the mapping practice. Linear walls and hedges should be separately
mapped by us in OSM, same to walls and hedges which are intended
as larger areas. Even if they coincide or overlap with other
areas, they should be mapped separately. It's very difficult to
resolve a bad or inconsistent mapping practice with a tag. So this
one will not do it either.<br>
5c. We don't bow for Carto's demands, we don't map for the
renderer. I am happy and appreciated Carto's comments, as it
painfully illustrates inconsistencies in mapping practices in OSM
and our failure to do something about it.</p>
<p>Scrub:shape is the only remaining. Why again a namespaced tag for
this purpose?<br>
</p>
<p>Greetings,</p>
<p>Bert Araali<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>