[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Rejected - shrubbery V2

[Peter Elderson]

As a mapper.
The distinction is now clear enough: scrub is wild, shrubbery is neatly
maintained. Both with a more-or-less, so in the middle there is a mapper's
choice.
Both are natural, because it's a naturally growing/flowing feature.

I will probably not use it much, because most areas over here are mixed
greenery, prone to frequent rearrangement. Many look like shrubbery or
scrub, but are actually herbs and high soft-stemmed plants. Some are
clearly hedge areas, I will tag them as barrier=hedge, maybe combined with
the natural=shrubbery, without the density thing. I think that is more
informative than a vague density indication with implied barrier function.

I don't think I will perform systematic change of existing natural=scrub
tagging of areas of shrubs, because of the detailed verification it
requires.

If there is a prospect of proper rendering on the general map, that might
change, because then truth-mapping and render-mapping coincide.


Fr gr Peter Elderson


Op di 17 aug. 2021 om 20:08 schreef Vincent van Duijnhoven <
vvanduijnhoven at outlook.com>:

> Hello everybody,
>
> The second iteration of the shrubbery proposal was rejected (25 approved,
> 18 opposed), falling well short of the 75% mark (58%).
>
> Because it is now rejected a second time and there is no consensus about a
> solution, we decided to start documenting an using natural=shrubbery.
> Please let us explain this decision below.
>
> The biggest point of contention was that natural=scrub should be used
> exclusively for natural, wild scrubland, and that any attempt to introduce
> tags that have any bearing upon the tag’s ‘naturalness’ (I.e., to which
> degree they are managed/maintained/cultivated by man) is unacceptable. Of
> the mappers who raised this point, a large group strongly preferred the
> natural=shrubbery tag proposed (and rejected) in the first iteration.
>
> Conversely, the first iteration was rejected by many of the voters for
> attempting to introduce a division within natural=scrub between man-managed
> shrubs and wild natural scrubland. The opinion held there was that this was
> all natural=scrub, and that adding a new tag was unwanted.
>
> The majority of voters in both voting rounds seem to agree that the status
> quo is unsatisfactory. The status quo being that man-managed shrubs
> (whether we call them shrubberies, shrubs, bushes, and regardless of
> whether we include hedges) are in fact mapped, every day, by mappers who
> feel that these improve various properties of the map, and that they use
> natural=scrub for this purpose — without any additional tags that would
> allow filtering out such ‘unnatural natural features’.
>
> In our opinion, this results of this second voting round again show that
> many mappers support mapping of man-managed scrubs, and wish for some
> tagging solution better than the status quo. (We also readily acknowledge
> that a minority of voters wish that no such mapping of man-managed shrubs
> would occur at all, but find this standpoint untenable given the actual
> mapping practices adopted by many mappers.)
>
> So here we come to the dilemma of this issue.
>
> The current proposal voting system seems insufficient to resolve this
> issue. For a change with as large an impact as this a more conclusive
> voting result would be preferable to proceed, but, unlike a proposal for a
> new tag for some novel feature, this issue has two major standpoints and
> two extra positions, namely:
>
>    - *It’s really all some form of natural=scrub, introduce sub-tags for
>    that *
>    - *The tag natural=scrub is exclusively for wild scrubland, make up a
>    new tag *
>    - *Mapping man-managed shrubs is completely undesirable *
>    - *Just use natural=scrub, no sub-tags (status quo) *
>
> Bear in mind that this last position is rarely explicitly stated, but is,
> de facto, the current way of doing things.
>
> We briefly considered if some form or ranked voting between these four
> positions might be fruitful, but we feel judging from the wording of some
> of the responses on the voting pages that such an approach will not be well
> received and may not be worth the effort.
>
> Because we want to work towards an eventual solution rather than except
> the status quo of ‘just map it all with natural=scrub’, we as proposal
> authors decided to start documenting and using natural=shrubbery under the
> ‘any tags you like’-principle. The tag has already been used over 1300
> times and the first proposal showed a good amount of support for
> natural=shrubbery.
>
> During this second round too, several voters (for and against) explicitly
> preferred natural=shrubbery. We have also taken all the feedback provided
> into account while writing the documentation for natural=shrubbery,
> hopefully fixing some of the more glaring omissions of the first draft. The
> documentation, when finished, will be found here:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=shrubbery
>
> Our goal is to give mappers who support this solution a way to grow
> grassroots support for tagging man-managed shrubs by having a documented
> tagging scheme to use.
>
> We realize that this initiative too will be rejected by some, but we
> kindly ask mappers to consider that with an issue as complex and polarized
> as this it will be impossible to place everyone (not in the least because
> some suggestions are diametrically opposed to others).
>
> We hope that despite any initial misgivings mappers may have had regarding
> natural=shrubbery you will be willing to consider using it and working
> towards broader support.
>
> Thank you all for voting and providing feedback.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Vincent and Jeroen
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210818/36d30f82/attachment-0001.htm>