[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse bush

Sun Feb 14 13:06:14 UTC 2021

Hi Vincent,

I actually didn't mean an extension of the use of natural=scrub.  In
many areas across the world it is already used in the same context. For
instance here in Africa we have a lot of bushes planted in parks, golf
cources, urban areas etc...  They are mostly all tagged as natural=scrub
and is a tagging habbit grown  In most cases they are managed through
clipping, weeding etc... although, due to the fact we don't do it that
often, they might look "unmanaged".
If you mean with native english speakers UK and US, they don't relate
the term scrub to shrub and bushes in built up areas, your reasoning
might be correct. Other "native" English speaking areas, like here in
Africa and Australia have another interpretation of the term "bush" in
daily use. As we try to find a global consensus, the term scrub seems to
cover the targeted vegetation type.
Using the term "uncultivated land" in it's definition is not wrong but
needs to be clarified, to my interpretation it refers to the land the
vegetation grows upon. Of course I agree completely that we need to
extend the wiki, ad mre examples and clarify the true meaning of scrub,
both within and outside of OSM.

You understood my reasoning in regard to landuse. The landuse refers to
the land the scrub grows upon, and in most cases, as we look at just the
English meaning of "uncultivated land", it is suitable in its current
state to be used with the examples given in the proposal.  If you follow
the OSM guidleines, one item, one tagging scheme, in most cases you will
have a larger landuse area containing several or even, overlapping areas
to detail the vegetation growing upon it. Same as is already common with
natural=wood or natural=grass, same as for the less used natural=heath.
Same as for landcover which gets some support but is less commonly used
in this context and due to it's history a bit controversy. I tried to
keep in mind to offer a proposal which is usable for all kinds of users,
cultures etc.. in the world and OSM. The majority of the mappers are not
academics, neither cartographers, and that is a good thing and one of
the reasons if you allow me to say so, Africans feel at home and
comfortable to contribute here.

In regard to managed and denotation, neither of them would be a
"required" tag. I added it as a proposal to add more context in the
significance, purpose or use, whatever someone wants to call it, as it
was clearly a need within the original proposal. Denotation, I agree
seems to be a suitable candidate and gaining support.  Of course we need
to take care the wiki gets updated and extend denotation to be used also
with natural=scrub and add some usable proposed values.

Managed is an approved key but poorly used. I mentioned it to promote
using more attribution of top level tags to provide detailed information
instead of creating or proposing top level keys.  Much in the same way
to avoid a situation and confusion like with forest and wood. As others
have already said, managed describes the process of how the scrub, bush
or shrub is managed, including maintained. But if you allow me,
personally I prefer to have that discussion in a new and separate
thread. A simple yes/no doesn't describe the management process clearly,
as not maintaining, let vegetation in the broader context, grow freely
is also a management strategy. Maintaining, with or without defining
more details, is another management strategy.

I would like to clarify that I am not the writer of this proposal or a
moderator of this thread or talk group. Just want to help to streamline
the discussion. I like to consider everyone's view and address the whole
community so we finally can come to a consensus and advise to the writer
of the proposal or find someone to extend or clarify our wiki, which can
be anyone feeling comfortable with the matter and I would be happy to
help with..

Greetings, Bert Araali

On 14/02/2021 12:17, Vincent van Duijnhoven via Tagging wrote:
>
> Thanks for the summary.
>
> If I understand you correctly, you don't want to use landuse but
> rather extend the use of natural=scrub? You then want to add an
> additional tag to natural=scrub like managed or denotation. 
>
> I understand your opinion about landuse and I think I agree. The
> question is then, introduce a new natural value or re-built
> natural=scrub. One thing though, especially some native English
> speakers stated is that when they think of scrub, they think of the
> wild version and not the decorative we are talking about. With
> "scrubland" in the description of the wiki page, I would also think
> the same. I also understand though that natual=shrub would potentially
> conflict with natural=scrub
>
> If natural=scrub is adjusted, the wiki page of natural=scrub would
> then need to be adjusted to match both scrub on (un)cultivated land
> and decorative as illustrated in the images in my proposal. The
> definition then needs to be broadened to give a range of possible
> definitions (e.g. scrubland, scrub, for decorative purposes etc).
>
> Additionally, I would personally only use denotation and not managed.
> Currently, you also don't add managed=yes to a natural=tree. I think
> that if we extend the values of denotation, it can say more about the
> scrub than managed=yes. Possible values: denotation=urban|wild|decoration.
>
> Greetings,
> Vincent
>
>
> 13 feb. 2021 23:19 van bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com:
>
>     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 <mailto: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
-- 
Ing. Bert Van Opstal Mobile: +256 782 304106 Email:
bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210214/9071dda2/attachment-0001.htm>