[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse bush

[Warin]

On 4/2/21 6:50 pm, Vincent van Duijnhoven via Tagging wrote:
> Just wondering, why would landuse=landscaping fit in the landuse 
> category of flowerbed and grass not?
>
> But I like the idea. It is a bit the same as my suggestion for 
> landuse/ natural=urban_greenery + landcover. But with the landscaping 
> tag, basically all human made green (especially in built-up area) 
> should be tagged then as landuse=landscaping? Also imagine farmland 
> and a road. Between those two, there is a 2m wide patch of grass to 
> fill the space. Would landscaping also fit there? When I, as a non 
> native english speaker, think of landscaping, I think more about the 
> greenery in parks and gardens. I understand that other greenery in a 
> built-up area is also part of the landscape but the term might be a 
> bit confusing.


The patch of 'waste land' between the road and farmers fence is there 
because of the road -

In Australia under some conditions there is a legal requirement for a 
'road verge' ..

Usually thought of as required for safety. landuse=highway would the the 
tag I would use here. The vegetation here varies greatly ... dirt, sand, 
native grasses, weeds heath, shrubs, small trees .. even large trees 
(which are a safety hazard).

While some of it is 'tendered' as in landscaped most of it has very 
little work done on it, some times it gets rubbish (paper, drink cans 
removed sometimes it gets 'mowed' by tractors with large cutting 
implements.

For ease of mapping landuse=highway would be most universal, easiest to 
map.


>
>
> 4 feb. 2021 01:04 van zelonewolf at gmail.com:
>
>
>     On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 4:48 PM Florian Lohoff <f at zz.de
>     <mailto:f at zz.de>> wrote:
>
>         When there is need for further micromapping purposes these should
>         not be in the landuse= hierarchy which classify rather large
>         swaths of
>         areas to a certain usage.
>
>
>     This is an excellent observation - I see the landuse= hierarchy as
>     covering things like "residential", "commercial", "industrial",
>     etc.  The tags landuse=flowerbed and landuse=grass are a poor fit
>     when compared to the rest of that key.
>
>     What is really being asked for here is tagging to micro-map small
>     landscaping features.  Perhaps there is an opportunity here to
>     create a new top-level key for this purpose.
>
>     I would call this key "landscaping" and it would take the form
>     landscaping=type_of_landscaping.
>
>     The exact list of values would need some development and thought,
>     and I'm not sure what overlaps might exist in existing tagging,
>     but you might imagine values that look something like:
>
>     landscaping=shrubbery (for the current example)
>     landscaping=flowerbed (deprecates landuse=flowerbed)
>     landscaping=grass (for lawns, deprecates landuse=grass)
>     landscaping=ornamental_grass (for beds of ornamental grasses)
>     landscaping=mixed_plants (multiple types of plants in combination,
>     bushes and flowers, etc)
>     landscaping=desert (desert-style landscaping, rocks, cacti, etc)
>
>

I'd go with landcover .. as that will be more universal.

Some times I may not be able to tell if it is 'landscaping' or not, but 
I can tell if there are flowers, shrubs, heath, grass etc.


Deserts can be sandy, rocky ... they don't all have the same look nor 
land cover.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210204/95db167c/attachment-0001.htm>