[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse bush

[Bert -Araali- Van Opstal]

I think we nearly reached a point where we can say that we have
consensus about the use of:

natural=scrub, used on a node, way or area, area is preferred.
Individual bushes, shrubs or stunted trees which fall under this group
can be tagged as nodes only with natural=shrub or natural=tree.  It is
not advised to map every individual plant in the area, same as we don't
map every individual tree in natural=wood areas. Only use it for
dominant plants where you want to emphasize their significance. To
further detail the individual mapped shrubs, bushes or trees tagging the
tag denotation=* can be used n the same way as we use it now on trees.
The area that carries the main or top-level tag reflects the dominant
vegetation form. So when you have a mixture of let's say grass, heath
and scrub, what is the dominant form in % of landcover, is the main tag
to use. You are free to divide in smaller areas if you want to provide
more detail.
Scrub by definition grows on uncultivated land, since cultivation of the
land is not possible due to the presence and the long growing cycle of
the vegetation. The plant(s) themself can be however cultivated or
managed, like f.i. plants belonging to this group can and are often used
for landscaping and decorative purposes in built-up areas and even as
patches along or within cultivated land like farmland.
It should be noted that scrub can be found on all kinds of landuse areas
including landuse that define the majority of the area land as
cultivated, like f.i. a large farmland is mapped as a large farmland,
the land is cultivated by definition because it's farmland. Patches of
scrub in the farmland can be mapped as separate areas within (on top or
as inner, as you wish).  This by definition indicates that in these
cases the underlying land is not cultivated.  It is not advised to do
the opposite mapping strategy or use this mapping in on cultivated land
that has shrub like or bush like crops or fruit producing plants, like
orchards.
Example: if you have an orchard with some patches of "wild" or
"decorative" scrub within, map and tag these as separate areas, don't
overlap and ta them with a suitable scrub=* tag.
Example: a large patch of scrub contains a small farmland - the farmland
should be mapped as a separate area (inner if needed) of the scrub
land.  Do not overlap so we clearly distinguish farmland as cultivated land.
As such scrub by itself indicates that it appears in the wider "wild"
environment, it has no specific landuse.  Scrub mapped within larger
landuse areas or boundaries can be found on any kind of landuse and in
many leisures like parks, gardens, recreation grounds, nature_reserves
etc....

Same as we categorise different types of other natural vegetation or
forms, like wetlands and grassland we introduce a new tag for the same
purpose: scrub=*. Values are still to be defined. 

Leaves us and Vincent to agree on how to distinct between the "wild" or
"decorative" categorising.
I did some searching and the best article sofar I found was this:
https://www.thespruce.com/difference-between-shrubs-and-bushes-3269793.
Together with Vincent's reference to wikipedia maybe a good starting
point could be the following values:
In general they are categorised in their "wild" form due to foilage
cover and height.  In landscaping some catagories can be found mostly
distinguished by form, so I propose to provide both:

For shrub 2-8 m in height

  * dense foliage cover (70–100%) — *closed-scrub*
  * mid-dense foliage cover (30–70%) — *open-scrub*
  * very sparse foliage cover (<10%) — *tall open shrubland*

For shrubs <2 m high the following structural forms result:

  * dense foliage cover (70–100%) — *closed-heath - should be moved to
    heath=* as we have a seperate natural=heath
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_(habitat)>*
  * mid-dense foliage cover (30–70%) — *open-heath - ***should be moved
    to heath=* as we have a seperate natural=heath
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heath_(habitat)>**
  * sparse foliage cover (10–30%) — *low shrubland*
  * very sparse foliage cover (<10%) — *low open shrubland*

For decorative or shrub and bushes + stunted trees used in landscaping:

- creepers or ground-covering
- boxwood
- fruitbush (both decorative or edible)
- fruittree (both decorative or edible)
- climbing
- landscaping shurb (decorative shrub with foil coverage to the ground,
mostly allowed to grow wild)
- landscaping bush (decorative shrub with foil coverage to the ground,
but mostly maintained by clipping or other methods)
- stunted tree
- landscaping small tree

Please note that we have to make a similar action for natural=heath with
a new heath=*.
I hope this helps Vincent and we can soon conclude and the proposal be
rewritten.

Greetings, Bert Araali.

On 15/02/2021 12:14, Vincent van Duijnhoven via Tagging wrote:
> I would say not. natural=scrub should only be used on scrub features
> (from wild scrublands to decorative ones). If the majority is scrub
> then I would tag it as natural=scrub and tag trees individually.
>
> would scrub=greenery be a good tag to map the decorative scrub?
>
> Greetings,
> Vincent
>
> 15 feb. 2021 09:27 van pelderson at gmail.com:
>
>     Would natural=scrub include non-scrub mixed greenery, say a
>     combination of flowers, heath, some trees and cultivated plants on
>     top of grass with no apparent purpose, just filling a space?
>
>     Peter Elderson
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210215/e5733520/attachment-0001.htm>