[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shrubbery

Mon Feb 22 13:55:47 UTC 2021

Well noticed Vincent and appreciated correction.  Let's name it
natural=shrub_*s*_. Sounds perfect to me and fits in the overall tagging
scheme. Sorry for the confusion.

Greetings,

Bert Araali

On 22/02/2021 16:33, Vincent van Duijnhoven wrote:
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> According to wiki, natural=shrub already exists to map individual
> shrubs (just like
> natural=tree): https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=shrub .
> So, if at all shrubbery should be renamed, it should be renamed to
> natural=shrubs in my opinion.
>
> About the definition, I didn't knew a better way to define the tag.
> This definition by you seems also fine to me: "a group of shrubs or
> bushes, characterized by stems with mostly a woody appearance and
> branches appearing at or close to the ground. In some cases the
> stem(s) are not woody like f.i. in most cacti and some low growing
> bamboos.". I personally wouldn't add exact height definitions in the
> definition. I would prefer to supply some images and text on which the
> mapper can decide whether something is heath, shrubs|shrubbery or
> tree|forest|wood.
>
> Kind regards,
> Vincent
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Van:* Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com>
> *Verzonden:* maandag 22 februari 2021 14:10
> *Aan:* tagging at openstreetmap.org <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shrubbery
>  
>
> Dear all,
>
>
> I applaud Vincent for doing his very best to try to find a compromise
> for the different objections and improvements proposed so far.
>
> I think we are very close to reaching a general consensus but it still
> needs some fine-tuning to achieve this. I carefully watched the first
> discussion yesterday, sitting back, analysing and researching all the
> arguments brought forward.
>
>
> 1.*Create and justify a new top level key value for these features ?* 
> I think I was the first one who brought up the suggestion to let these
> features reside under scrub, both to cater for the scientific user as
> the common mapper. Additionally arguments were to keep the structure
> and use of our natural tagging - with a limited number of top-level
> distinct values and detailing through attribution.
> To me, and correct me if I am wrong, the majority here, it is
> generally accepted that this is such a common type of vegetation and
> commonly referred to in different terms, that Vincent's proposal
> justifies creating a new natural top-level value group. It doesn't
> need further discussion and it will not stop me from supporting this
> proposal.
>
>
> 2. *What is the most commonly accepted and suitable word in English
> for the new top-level value in natural?* In this I tried to understand
> Vincent's justification in the proposal and in regard to previous
> discussions. The proposal had some history as it moved from bush or
> bushes, to shrub.  Was there a good reason to introduce a new term
> "shrubbery" in regard to the previous "shrub".  In my honest opinion
> no, unless Vincent had also in mind to use a term "shrubbery", which
> describes very distinctive garden practices in traditional English
> gardening, to link the features he is targetting to gardening or
> "decorative" use as such, trying to avoid discussion? This doesn't
> seem to work.
> When I look back to the history of the proposal, there was good
> grounds to choose shrub instead of bush as that is the most commonly
> used term in the scientific world and is understood and used by most
> communities using English. It didn't have much objection in the
> previous discussion if we agreed on 1, in the contrary it is a good
> indication that in many cases it can cause some overlap with
> natural=scrub since scrub also contains shrubs, an overlap or gap
> which we should try to reduce with a more distinctive detailed definition.
>
> So in my opinion, best to leave it natural=shrub.
>
>
> 3.*Is a clear definition provided that minimises the overlap with
> other natural tags ?* In my opinion no, some improvements are needed.
> In all good intentions Vincent tried, but using some objective terms,
> like "wild" or "decorative", and not clear understood subjective terms
> like "cultivation or cultivated land".
> 3a. Use of the term "wild".  I asked myself, what is considered
> "wild".  A shrub that grows in a natural way, but shaped on a regular
> basis by humans, no discussion, no one can call that wild. A shrub
> that is planted by humans, but for various reasons after planting, not
> shaped by humans.  We enter the grey zone, some might consider it wild
> because it is and can continue it's growth in a natural way, some
> might consider it not wild because humans might control it's
> reproduction or spreading by removing seedlings, shoots and seeds. Is
> scrub, that is confined by human intervention to prevent it's
> uncontrolled spreading to be considered still wild ? Is scrub where
> humans intervene to remove shrubs or bushes or undergrowth no longer
> to be considered as wild, and thus becomes shrub ? Is it in all cases
> viable for a mapper in the field to determine if there was never human
> intervention so that it be scrub ? I think the description of both
> scrub and shrub should not contain the word "wild".
>
> 3b. Use of the term "decorative".  Many people consider shrubs that
> are allowed to grow unobstructed by human intervention as very
> decorative. More decorative as the neatly trimmed shrubs because they
> prefer natural growth. Some shrubs might even require to be grown
> naturally to achieve the "decorative" purpose, f.i. to allow them to
> flower.  So when it is no flowering season are these plants no longer
> considered decorative then ?  Are they to be consider as scrub
> depending on the season ? I think we should avoid the term "decorative".
> 3c. Cultivation or cultivated land. This is a quite clear defined
> objective term: it applies to land or individual plants who are worked
> upon by humans to produce crops or fruits. Scrub, by definition can
> only be found on non cultivated land.  No doubt about it. However,
> patches of scrub can be found in cultivated land, and any user should
> be allowed to map them indepently of their size.  If the mapper or
> scientist consider that patch as significant to ap it that way, it's
> fine.  Small patches are mostly there for a good reason, maybe the
> scrub contains a protected species, provides a biome or refuge for
> wildlife, has a cultural significance, has a historical
> significance... Should we not map it as scrub because the main land it
> grows within is cultivated, situated in farmland or an orchard ?
>
> A single plant might be cultivated, f.i. an apple tree or a berry bush
> or shrub in a garden, or on public land. Is it suitable then to use
> the term cultivation to define natural=shrub as a major feature.  Is
> mulching to be considered as practice to consider a lnd as cultivated,
> same as f.i. weeding.  No, because in the case of the shrubs we like
> to define, the mulching and weeding is not intended to harvest crops
> or fruits from the shrubs.
> So in the existing definition of scrub I would keep it, but in shrub,
> to distinguish it from scrub, it is not the best choice.
>
>
> 4. *What (subjective) classification principle is the best suited for
> OSM* ? I am not a scientist neither a botanist or whatever but I made
> the effort to browse to the internet and read some studies about
> vegetation classification principles used for mapping purposes.  I
> wasn't able to find one single principle that covers our needs but did
> identify some common criteria: height of the vegetation and it's
> appearance. Height is a general distinction that is used already to
> define heath and to distinguish heath from scrub. Height is not
> clearly defined as a criteria to distinguish grassland, as we all now
> some grasslands contain grasses which can grow up to significant
> heights like the dominant elephant grass here in Africa. They are
> distinguished by describing there appearance.  Same applies to
> distinguish wood, generally regarded as tree coverage, where the
> height criteria might not be enough to distinguish it from scrub
> (scrub contains small trees and stunted trees), so there is an
> additional guidance to it's appearance.
> What I definitively still don't like about this proposal is that it
> tries to limit the group of vegetation we should consider as shrub by
> putting limiting criteria in it's definition, and additionally
> discourages the use of attribution tags like with scrub=* or in this
> case the need of shrub=* which allow data consumers and mappers to
> further attribute and map and use the data for their specific
> interests or needs.  It is a principle which is slowly getting ground
> in other tags to avoid getting an uncontrolled group of endless
> top-level keys or values which create a mess, discourages and
> decreases the usage of our wiki etc...  Also we should avoid to
> incorporate any additional classification that limits or
> discriminates. I am thinking like including a term like "it is mostly
> found inside urban environments".  So as a mapper or as a local
> community I should not regard my shrubs in my garden, on my farm, as a
> nomad the shrubs I planted and maintain around my water holes as not
> being shrubs, but scrubs ?  Do we consider these as not civilised
> environments because by defintion it must be considered scrub that is
> always "wild".  The opposite, should we consider patches of remaining
> scrub, or even patches of shrubs in parks, gardens etc... in cities,
> as not to be considered anymore as scrub but rather as shrub just
> because of the single fact they grow, still wild and natural in a city ?
> I do think that in the limited number of examples given at this stage
> and maybe the limited number of cases identified so far, the proposal
> should provide it as optional tagging with some guidance on what we
> consider as good practice to assign as values and encourage users to
> extend the proposal or the wiki page after approval to add more
> examples, more values to the attribution keys.  I am already thinking
> about examples like a field or decorative groups of cacti, bamboo, all
> to be considered as scrub or shrub and probably miss on many more
> examples. Attribution keys are very OK to be extended with subjective
> criteria, different classification criteria, in essence any value that
> a user see fit or considers as significant enough.
>
>
> So, after all of this being said in my opinion this propsal has great
> potential for success when:
>
> 1. Creation of a new natural top value is justified, I support it;
>
> 2.  I prefer the term natural=shrub since it has most common ground
> and has a general English meaning that complies most with the
> vegetation group we are targetting;
>
> 3. + 4. For shrub maybe: "Is a group of shrubs or bushes,
> characterised by stems with mostly a woody appearance and branches
> appearing at or close to the ground. In some cases the stem(s) are not
> woody like f.i. in most cacti and some low growing bamboos." This tag
> should only be used for vegetation, with this distinctive appearance,
> that shows a top foliage not higher then 5m? and not lower then 20 cm
> ? Similar woody vegetation lower then shrub should be tagged with
> natural=heath. Vegetation showing a higher foliage is to be mapped
> separately as individual trees, tree rows or natural=wood or
> landcover=trees.
>
> For scrub: existing + This tag should only be used for vegetation,
> with this distinctive appearance and containing small or stunted
> tress,, and/or shrubs and/or bushes, that shows a top foliage not
> higher then 5m? and not lower then 20 cm ?
>
> How to distinguish scrub from shrub:
>
> Scrub: (this is existing)
> Maintained, cultivated areas of landscaping or shrubbery (this usage
> is controversial), I propose to change to: When scrub is found where
> human intervention is clear to influence it's interior growth or
> propagation to serve it's appearance to be more attractive to humans
> or to control it's growth to not interfere with other human
> activities, like landscaping, gardening, in or on cultivated land,
> natural = shrub should be used instead. If the human activity is aimed
> at controlling it's propagation at it's boundaries only or to keep it
> in it's indigenous natural state, f.i. by clearing invasive species,
> it is to be tagged as natural=scrub.
> Of course I propose a similar distinction statement for shrubs.
>
>
> Hope this helps,
>
>
> Greetings,
>
>
> Bert Araali
>
>
> On 21/02/2021 22:37, Vincent van Duijnhoven wrote:
>> Based on the discussion on landuse=shrubs|bush, I created a new
>> proposal for shrubbery. This proposal proposes the tag
>> natural=shrubbery with as definition: "An area of cultivated
>> decorative shrubs or bushes"
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shrubbery
>> <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FProposed_features%2Fshrubbery&data=04%7C01%7C%7C6eda70be692b493fa60d08d8d733a070%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637495964022326990%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=OBjvqvet4nhW8zTyKmA4yoKakFcGP3Z1Pjdh9B%2BVcM0%3D&reserved=0>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Vincent
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.openstreetmap.org%2Flistinfo%2Ftagging&data=04%7C01%7C%7C6eda70be692b493fa60d08d8d733a070%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637495964022336942%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=sqf6%2BuPh2muJ%2FjzK0%2B9aZKFs5Pk2SGHab%2FkD%2BmZFRyg%3D&reserved=0>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210222/47bfc370/attachment-0001.htm>