[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - landuse bush

Mon Feb 15 14:10:59 UTC 2021

Thank you for the research. 

I think that defining the wild scrub based on height and density does not work. Decorative scrub (see images in my proposal) can also be defined based on height and density. Also, I would not include trees (also not if they have been stunted or planted).

If I for example compare it width grassland=*, values like are better for the tag scrub=*
- Mediterranean scrublands [1]
- Desert scrublands [1]
- Cultivated_scrub

This better describes the subtype of the scrub. More research has to be done into the different scrub types but you get the idea. With some images on wiki next to the subtypes should help mappers enough to map it.

Greetings,
Vincent

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrubland

15 feb. 2021 12:01 van bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com:

>
> 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/20210215/5d975dda/attachment.htm>