[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse bush
Bert -Araali- Van Opstal
bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Sun Feb 14 19:35:22 UTC 2021
Mmmm, I am getting you. But the wetland and grassland keys are used to
describe subtypes. Are we going to use "decorative" or maybe
"landscaped" as a subtype ? I can see advantages in defining a scrub key
with subtype values as a useful and consisting addition.
Greetings, Bert Araali
On 14/02/2021 21:53, Vincent van Duijnhoven via Tagging wrote:
> Indeed. The example values were more to illustrate my point. But just
> like wetland=* and grassland=*, scrub=* can be used to further define
> the type of scrub(land).
>
> For example, this wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrubland lists
> several types of scrub. One of them would be scrub=decoration or so to
> be used on the shrub I am trying to find a tag for. The rest of the
> wilder bushed can then for example be defined with the types listed in
> the wiki.
>
> Greetings,
> Vincent
>
>
> 14 feb. 2021 19:25 van bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com:
>
> Would that be a wise move ? If we introduce a new scrub key, to be
> consistent, we will have to do the same for other vegetation
> types, grass= wild / mowed, heath = wild /clipped. I proposed
> managed (not that much used) and denotation (widely used) since
> they are used for similar attributions, more specifically for
> trees. Same as we can use other commonly used attribution tags
> like the leaftype for vegetation, even they could be used on hedge.
> Sorry for al the work you have done Vincent, but be sure it is
> much appreciated, you started discussion and for sure a
> significant improvement on the wiki and tagging consistency.
>
> Greetings, Bert Araali
>
> On 14/02/2021 20:15, Vincent van Duijnhoven via Tagging wrote:
>> I just had a discussion with Brian on the topic. Is it an idea to
>> instead of introducing landuse=shrub, extend the natural=scrub
>> with a new tag scrub=wild|decorative? This better describes the
>> type of scrub than denotation=* or managed=*.
>>
>> As explained by Bert Araali, natural=scrub is currently already
>> used to tag the kind of decorative scrub as illustrated in my
>> proposal for landuse=shrub. By adding a new tag to natural=scrub,
>> all that work does not need to be changed. An advantage is that
>> already gets rendered on carto. The wiki then needs to be changed
>> to address this broader definition of scrub and that
>> natural=scrub can be further defined with scrub=wild|decorative.
>>
>> Any thoughts on this?
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Vincent
>>
>>
>>
>> 14 feb. 2021 14:06 van bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
>> <mailto:bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com>:
>>
>> 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
>>> <mailto: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).
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210214/608825cf/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list