[Tagging] Orchards and their crops

[Jerry Clough (SK53)]

Replies in-line:
On 16/09/2015 06:33, johnw wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 15, 2015, at 6:44 PM, Jerry Clough - OSM <sk53_osm at yahoo.co.uk 
>> <mailto:sk53_osm at yahoo.co.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> No there is nothing I'm aware of which discriminates anywhere between 
>> cultivated pears in general (/Pyrus communis/) & specific cultivars 
>> ('Conference' <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conference_pear>). 
>> Cultivar just is shorthand for "cultivated variety" so of course 
>> there is no hierarchy variety=>cultivar.
>
>
> I guess I was looking for an idea of where people draw the lines 
> between the trees, like we can with potatoes and sweet potatoes. I 
> know there are many many kinds of both, but usually they can easily be 
> divided into two groups, because we can say that a potato and a sweet 
> potato are commonly referred to by those two separate names, and 
> usually not confused with each other by the people that grow them and 
> consume them.

Sweet Potatoes & Potatoes are completely different things: different 
plant families (Convolvulacae vs Solanaceae), different origin as a 
cultivated plant (Central America vs Andes), different method of 
cultivation, they have in common that they are root vegetables. When I'm 
buying potatoes in the supermarket I pay a great deal of attention to 
the variety: King Edwards have very different properties from Desiree or 
Maris Piper. The 'Lumper' variety is historically important because of 
the Irish Potato famine, as it was this variety's susceptibility to 
/Phythophora /which was the proximate cause of the famine. (See for 
example Salaman's /The History/ /& Social Influence of the Potato/ 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redcliffe_N._Salaman#The_history_and_social_influence_of_the_potato> 
, and late works on the same subject).

>
> I am very comfortable throwing all grapes into “grapevines”  or all 
> oranges into “orange_trees” - but I don’t know about some obviously 
> different fruits that share the same words - Asian pears look 
> different, taste different - and most importantly - not considered a 
> “pear” by the people that grow them - “pears” are “western pears” to 
> them.  So I feel comfortable saying that having “pear_trees” and 
> “sand_pear_trees” is a good idea.

Hmm, not all grapes are the same. In NY state and elsewhere in the NE of 
the US, grapes are grown which are native to North America 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitis_labrusca>. The vast majority of 
grapes grown for fruit and wine-making are however /Vitis vinifera/. 
Similarly your pears are different species not varieties.
>
> But when it comes to all the other trees I have never heard of until I 
> was cleaning up that list (is a "Governor’s plum" a plum? Is a 
>  “Custard Apple” an Apple?), I was looking to see if there is some 
> known way of putting the trees into usable categories or types for 
> mapping without having people suggest them one by one - otherwise 
> we’ll get odd regional or slang names - or things possibly grouped by 
> distant mappers who don’t understand the nuances - like me with some 
> of these trees.
>
>
> Javbw

For these types of differences I think it is important to be aware that 
things are different, and not try and subsume them in some artificial 
category.  We're still living with early American colonists calling 
things Robins, Blackbirds and Sparrows, when they weren't. In general 
wikipedia is your friend here!

The whole point of taxon/species tags is to allow much more precise 
tagging than is possible, say with the trees tag. Even in the UK an oak 
wood may be made up of one of 2 species, and we have a very impoverished 
set of trees. There are not mutually exclusive, although one idea of 
taxon was to allow any taxonomic level to be used. Thus I'm fine with 
trees=pear_trees and taxon=Pyrus pyrifolia for Asian Pear (I would 
always recommend using taxon:en or taxon:ja to add a vernacular name as 
well) and trees=pear_trees and taxon=Pyrus communis for the Common Pear.

Jerry

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150916/f10bb34a/attachment.html>