[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse bush

[stevea]

On Feb 13, 2021, at 6:32 PM, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2021, at 4:28 PM, Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In this case would much better fit the use and purpose. You can additionally add the key "managed" (not "maintained", it is "managed"), even define an addtional value for it to provide more detail. PArts of it seem to have grown to become trees, if you like to provide more detail these can be mapped as separate areas with natural=wood.
> 
> Yes, managed and maintained remain blurry compared to one another.  "The hand of humans" in nature can be said by many to be heavy and noticeable, creating land use and land cover patterns which are rich and storied, this tapestry continues to unfold upon Earth as long as we are here.  Brian's suggestions about "managed" do lead in a better direction.
> 
> Apologies, when I look back, Brian did indeed use "managed", not "maintained", & that is what I was referring to.

I meant to neither chide nor admonish, simply to further looking at that as a way to "put the spin" of human-managed on things (assigning a specific semantic to the syntax of "managed").  This is a semantic which seems needs some precision, especially since in this case it's describing living things (shrubs), as in landscaping or urban, commercial (automobile-dominant shopping center) or retail (some larger malls in southern California featuring outdoor pedestrian access / ramps on multiple levels have palm trees as features, for example).  The distinction of whether some of these are indoor or outdoor could be a matter of debate, given the mixed nature of the real estate (solarium windows, partially-open-to-the-elements architectures...).  It's a mild, sunny climate.  Though those Oz parking lot shrubs look like they could be in California (given their purpose as "commercial parking lot shrubbery") even if I don't recognize the down-under flora's genus and species (and I did take a botany class).  Much else (not drive-on-the-left!) in Photo 4 could be a lot of places around here (California).

> They are actually signposted as "Dune Stabilisation / Beach Protection Area. Please keep out", so does that make them a =nature_reserve?

The tag begins with "leisure."  Is this place so humans can enjoy the flora and fauna of a protected area for wildlife, geology or other special interest?  Maybe (dunes might be geology, I'm not sure).  I don't know if that is enough, though if you read our wiki (which DOES point to b=p_a), you'll have a better idea combining the exact place with what is described there.  I leave that as an exercise for the reader.

> Incidentally, here's another shot from the beach side:
> 
> https://goo.gl/maps/JF3SNVm9iHfUVTYS9

Especially as there are trees (on one side of the low foot-barrier guarding the edge of the footpath) and dune grass, but no footpath barrier, on the other side, these living things do make "richer" the complexity of the landcover mix.  A sign saying "please keep off the grass (dunes)" doesn't automatically make something protected, though it's getting close or might be there.  It depends on the "rules" (or law) of what happens if somebody does step on them, I think to some extent.  A private property owner might realize that "sensitive things happen on this dune grass" and put up a sign saying "hey, don't do that" (and it isn't protected any more than that).  Or, there might be actual prohibitions, as snowy plover (birds) build nests in this sea grass on this beach (as at Wilder Beach Natural Preserve near me):  no pedestrians or humans allowed, unless you are an ornithologist with a permit to do very careful studies or bird-census-taking.  This is a "higher standard of protection" area inside of a state park, the state park itself a protected area (to a certain degree):  "humans recreate here" (except Preserves).

Gets real complicated real fast, eh?  Much that OSM can do to simplify tagging on these is being done in our present and future.  The results won't land on "everybody agrees, even those who want detailed minutiae mapped" for a long time, maybe not even until forever.  But b=p_a will allow a good start with a whisper of tagging on a known edge (boundary).  That's boundary, which I mentioned shares a bit of overlap with land USE.  Much of what is being discussed here (bushes, shrubbery, sea grass on dunes...) is about land COVER.

In the meantime, keeping distinctions firmly in mind between land use and land cover remains a very important thing to do.  Yes, it is pretty darn easy to blend, merge, mix up, confuse, substitute, fog between all the (often subtle) nuances here.  One thing that has helped me to get better at this (it DOES take practice!) is to imagine the same landuse with a different landcover and vice versa and see if you broke the rules by doing that.  If you could put bare_rock or scree or swamp on it, would it still be landuse=*?  If so, maybe it IS a landuse.  If not, think again about how the scheme to do what you might do is put together and unravel the pieces so it does begin to make sense.  That can be hard, it is another example of what I've called "running it through the gears" as you rev it up and around.  This can be an unusual or uncomfortable skill to develop and not everybody is good at it, I've learned, though some better than others can offer insights about it.  OSM as a whole does get better at it, this takes some time, though we are doing it.  And it is an ongoing, changing process, hence this list.

Don't ever let anybody say tagging is easy:  sometimes it really offers challenges!