[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse bush

Sat Feb 13 22:45:10 UTC 2021

I think the general notion that we could tag these landscaping areas as
natural=scrub has merit.  There is certainly an inherent advantage in using
a tag that already renders as well.

There is still a need to distinguish between manicured/groomed/landscaped
areas and simply natural scrubland.  The "managed" key seems like it could
work for that.  The current description for managed=yes is "landscape or
signs indicate management but kind is unclear" which is not quite on the
mark, and so I wonder if a new value of "managed" is needed in these cases,
or if managed=yes should cover the case.

Certainly a render that cares to draw these differently would want to have
a way to tell landscaping apart from scrubland.

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 5:22 PM Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <
bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com> wrote:

> My apologies for this long mail,but I kindly request to take your time and
> go through the references, my personal conclusions/proposal sofar resulting
> from the ongoing discussions.
>
> I did some more research to clarify on the issue and I kindly request to
> streamline this discussion. I enjoy and encourage the ongoing discussion
> and respect every bodies opinion. However, we are getting nowhere and end
> up with confused mappers doing their own thing, creating more mapping and
> tagging variants and inconsistencies. We get a  "mess" which is ever more
> difficult to solve in the long term, doesn't serve our communities cause
> and data consistency.
>
> My research summary and what so far came up in the discussion:
>
> Ref.A - OSM wiki on natural=scrub (: "The tag natural
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural>=scrub is used to tag
> areas of uncultivated land covered with shrubs, bushes or stunted trees."
> and important the definition on
> key:natural = "wide variety of physical geography, geological
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Geological> and landcover
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Landcover> features, including ones
> that have been modified or created by humans
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Counterintuitive_key_names>.
> It is also referenced in the Feature:vegetation wiki page together with
> natural=heath and barrier=hedge which also appeared in the discussion as
> possible solutions and strongly related:
> scrub on Feature:vegetation = "Uncultivated area with shrubs, bushes or
> stunted trees - taller than heath."
> heath on Feature:vegetation = "Uncultivated area with dwarf shrubs and
> bushes - shorter than scrub."
> hedge on Feature:vegetation = "Shrubs arranged in a dense line to form an
> impassable hedge" and
> hedge on Bariier:hedge = "barrier
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier>=hedge is used to
> identify a line of closely spaced shrubs and tree species, which form a
> barrier or mark the boundary of an area. Hedges may be actively managed,
> but this is not always the case." and important
> Key:barrier = "A *barrier* is a physical structure which blocks or
> impedes movement." and for hedge on
> key:barrier:hedge = "Is a line of closely spaced shrubs and bushes,
> planted and trained in such a way as to form a barrier or to mark the
> boundary of an area. "
>
> Ref.B - WIkipedia: "*Shrubland*, *scrubland*, *scrub*, *brush*, or *bush*
> is a plant community <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_community>
> characterized by vegetation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetation>
> dominated <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(ecology)> by shrubs
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrub>, often also including grasses
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grass>, herbs
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbaceous_plant>, and geophytes
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophyte>. Shrubland may either occur
> naturally or be the result of human activity."
>
> Ref.C - from freenecyclodeia:scrub·land: An area of land that is
> uncultivated and covered with sparse stunted vegetation."
>
> Next let's summarise where, of course my analysis and opinion, we are at
> this time on the discussion requested for the proposal (landuse
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse>=shrubs to define an
> area of bushes on cultivated land and in the built environment, often used
> for decorative purposes or to fill space and where barrier
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:barrier>=hedge
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier%3Dhedge> does not apply.
> To make it simple lets split it:
> Question 1 - Do we need a new landuse=shrubs or bush. To my analysis we
> have consensus on this: NO.
> Shrubs are covered by natural=scrub as all references, including the
> existing OSM wiki page clearly states that scrub includes bushes, shrubs
> etc... . Landuse is a wrong key anyhow since we want to describe
> vegetation, not the use of the land since the examples given are vegetation
> located in an area which can be clearly identified with existing landuse,
> leisure or amenity keys. So natural would be the most suitable key. However
> in natural we also have scrub which covers this type of vegetation.
> Landcover or landform as alternative (see discussion page). The answer is
> no again since landcover is less commonly used then natural to describe
> vegetation, landform is a key resulting from 1 import and it can be
> represented by existing, mostly natural tags. Further on, it is not
> recommended to overlap different landuse areas.  Overlapping a landuse with
> a natural area is perfectly OK and supported by most renderers and data
> consumers.
>
> Question 2 - As the answer on Question 1 is no, can we use natural=scrub,
> since scrub refers to this type of vegetation but on uncultivated land.
> The vegetation that we want to tag is on cultivated land, or in built up
> areas. To my opinion yes but still under discussion.  It depends on the
> interpretation of what is "cultivated land".
> Notice the difference here that there is a difference in "cultivated
> land", as it refers to the land where the vegetation is growing, not to the
> "cultivation" of the vegetation as such! I and others didn't notice that in
> the first discussions. Scrub is generally defined as can be seen in the
> references as growing on uncultivated land.  The vegetation itself, whether
> it is scrub or a hedge, can be maintained or not.  When it is maintained
> does that mean that the vegetation is cultivated, to my interpretation yes,
> a cultivated plant is by definition maintained.
> Now what is the general definition of cultivated land:
> (from freedictionary): "arable land that is worked by plowing and sowing
> and raising crops, cultivated land that is not seeded for one or more
> growing seasons is called a fallow (but is still cultivated land)"
> (from wikipedia, cultivated land = arable land): "
>
> *Arable land* (from the Latin
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_language>: *arabilis
> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/arabilis#Latin>*, "able to be plowed
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plow>") is any land capable of being
> ploughed <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plough> and used to grow crops
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop>.[1]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land#cite_note-oed-1>
> Alternatively, for the purposes of agricultural
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture> statistics,[2]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land#cite_note-2> the term often
> has a more precise definition:
>
> "Arable land is the land under temporary agricultural crops
> (multiple-cropped areas are counted only once), temporary meadows
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow> for mowing or pasture
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasture>, land under market
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_garden> and kitchen gardens
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_garden> and land temporarily fallow
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallow> (less than five years). The
> abandoned land resulting from shifting cultivation
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shifting_cultivation> is not included in
> this category. Data for 'Arable land' are not meant to indicate the amount
> of land that is potentially cultivable."[3]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land#cite_note-3>
>
> A more concise definition appearing in the Eurostat glossary similarly
> refers to actual rather than potential uses: "land worked (ploughed or
> tilled) regularly, generally under a system of crop rotation
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_rotation>".
>
> Now the proposal refers to bushes or shrubs that are grown on cultivated
> land or in built up areas.  The only cultivated land where we find bushes
> or shrubs to produce crops (or fruits) are orchards and (parts of) gardens,
> allotments, and maybe some plant nurseries. intended for producing crops.
> All other land is per definition NOT cultivated land. Within these land
> uses, as well as in farmland, one in general does not map the individual
> crop or fruit producing bushes, we map and tag them with the corresponding
> landuse tag.
> However, parts of the land-uses can be reserved or left uncultivated. It
> is appropriately to draw areas on the land uses and tag them as scrub or
> heath, as the land where this type of vegetation grows is PER DEFINITION
> not cultivated since you have to remove the vegetation to be able to
> cultivate that land. Same as we can find trees that does not produce crops
> or fruits on cultivated land, purely ornamental, decorative or whatever
> other use. Best practice would be to use multi polygons with inner parts
> but we have to decide if overlapping is acceptable since it is clear by
> using the scub that the land underneath is not cultivated. Anyway, this
> will again open the discussion if we can overlap different landuses like
> residential with orchard etc..., yet for practical reasons in my opinion
> should be discussed separately.
> Does this mean it can be used for the examples given in the proposal: yes.
> The landuse defines the use The use is further detailed by the fact that
> shrub or bushes because the natural=scrub are never used for shurbs or
> bushes producing crops or fruits intended for regular harvesting. Their
> primarily purpose within (not on, clearly within) a stretch of cultivated
> land is defined by the landuse tag. Does this need a managed tag ? Is
> optional, the manage tag does not define it's use. Does this need another
> key:vaue to define its purpose as decorative / habitat for fauna / bird
> nesting etc..., we need a proposal for that. Already proposed is "Usage",
> seems to me not appropriate in regard to it's use with pipelines, waterways
> etc.... Another candidate is "denotation" as with trees which seems to me a
> very suitable candidate.
> Can it be used within a built up area, of course, no problem there as the
> built up areas are defined with landuse tags.
>
> Question 3 - Barrier=hedge does not apply.
> Refer to the references at the top. Hedges have a clear specific use case:
> to create a barrier, boundary or border (decorative hedge).  The have a
> typical linear character. Now where it says that a cultivated bush or shrub
> is a hedge, in the contrary, a hedge can be not cultivated and it is
> specifically described and defined as such. It even covers hedges that are
> not managed or maintained. You can argue, but we can define hedges as
> areas.  Yes, true (regardless if that is rendered correctly, should be a
> separate discussion), same as we can define walls as areas yet they are
> also rendered only as lines, even with a area=yes, but again that's a
> different issue. To my opinion there is two main requirements to classify a
> scrub, bush, shrub or groups of them as hedge: 1) linear character, even if
> mapped as an area the area needs to be predominately linear 2) it has the
> primary use as a barrier, border or boundary.
> To answer the problem trying to be solved in the proposal: 1) in some
> given examples (nr. 3) could be interpreted as linear, All others no, not
> linear at all. 2) the primary purpose is decorative, the barrier effect in
> some cases (like on the parking) is by kerbs or other type of barriers, no
> border or boundary use. So to my opinion in regard to the proposal but
> still open for discussion: barrier=hedge does not apply in these cases.
>
> SUMMARY:
>
> Question 1: consensus on no support creating another top level key:value.
> landuse:shrub / landuse:bush. Landcover and landform surely not supported.
>
> Question 2: natural=scrub should be used, mapped as an area on or within
> an area with a defined landuse. managed=* is optional, denotation as with
> trees to further define it's significance.. Actions: extend the related
> wiki pages with description of what is cultivated and uncultivated LAND and
> how to map and tag + what is to be used to map and tag cultivated and/or
> managed VEGETATION (regardless if it is located on cultivated or
> uncultivated land).
>
> Question 3: barrier=hedge should not be used in these cases.  It should be
> used when the vegetation is predominately linear AND has either a primary
> purpose or use as barrier, or boundary or border. Hedges covers both
> managed / maintained as unmaintained / not managed. ("cultivated" has never
> been used as a term with hedges as far as I can recall).
>
> Greetings and keep discussing !
> Bert Araali
> On 13/02/2021 16:30, Volker Schmidt wrote:
>
> This looks again a confusion of scrub and shrub
>
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2021, 12:01 Peter Neale via Tagging, <
> tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>
>> IMHO Scrub that has been managed is not scrub any more.
>>
>> The Wiki says, "The tag natural
>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:natural>=scrub is used to tag
>> areas of uncultivated land covered with shrubs, bushes or stunted trees."
>>
>> ..and see also, https://www.thefreedictionary.com/scrubland, which says,
>>
>> "
>> scrub·land   (skrŭb′lănd′)
>> *n.*
>> An area of land that is uncultivated and covered with sparse stunted
>> vegetation."
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210213/261ef51e/attachment-0001.htm>