[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shrubbery

[Peter Elderson]

This is my understanding now:
a shrub is one plant (natural=shrub). I would never map one shrub, though.
natural=shrubs (or landcover=shrubs) would mean a group or an area of
shrubs.
natural=scrub would be wider, maybe managed but less manicured area of
shrubs and low stunted trees on e.g. a grassy or sandy ground.

natural=shrubbery would be a dedicated area intended to grow and display
just shrubs.  A shrubbery is a feature, not a landcover. As I understand
it, you cannot say "this area is covered with shrubbery".

A hedge consists of shrubs, but does not qualify as a shrubbery or as
scrub.

The old hedge area could maybe qualify as a shrubbery.

However,  when a "left over" piece of land with no apparent primary use, or
rather a mix of presumed uses,  is covered with vegetation, with no
predominant type, it's just greenery. Can be scrub now, flowers might
dominate in summer, grasses grow hip-high when the flowers are gone, or
they plow, mow and redesign it every other year. Then it's
landcover=greenery or natural=greenery.
That's what the Dutch call "gemeentegroen" (municipal greenery),
often confused with village_green but that's an entirely different feature.

Peter Elderson


Op ma 22 feb. 2021 om 16:36 schreef Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <
bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com>:

> Not in my opinion Vincent, I would even say that it makes it more clear if
> accompanied with a good definition.  I would say shrubbery creates more
> confusion, as it refers specifically to a gardening concept where it says
> it should contain a path.  It is also not a common term used in common
> language in most English speaking countries.  I even doubt, since it's
> British cultural history, it has an equivalent in any other language, which
> might cause translation issues for our wiki pages.
>
> This in my opinion is not the case for shrub.  To my research scrub is
> more commonly used to describe biomes and mostly in the scientific world.
> Since it long history and common use it existed in OSM, and due to the
> lack of an alternative shrubs it was used also to map the shrubs as you
> describe in your proposal.
> Last year the UN started a very large project with the UN mappers to map
> natural features in the DRC and some neighbouring countries.  This will
> give us landcover, or natural mapping as you wish, to cover nearly 1/3th of
> the continent.  Scrub is used in that project consistently to map all land
> with scrub and shrubs, even in villages.  Urbanised areas are mapped using
> landuse=residential.  This project aims at mapping large areas.  There was
> still a gap for detailed mapping in regard to urban areas and villages. So
> also in this context I see your proposal as a valuable and justified
> addition, but I think no one in these projects will go and search for a
> "shrubbery" tag.
> In my opinion, if not perfect, the best term seen so far with the least
> objections, we should go for it.
>
>
> Greetings,
>
>
> Bert Araali
> On 22/02/2021 17:57, Vincent van Duijnhoven wrote:
>
> But is shrubs not too confusing with the existing tags "scrub" and
> "shrub"?  Shrubbery does not have that problem.
> ------------------------------
> *Van:* Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com>
> <bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com>
> *Verzonden:* maandag 22 februari 2021 14:55
> *Aan:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org> <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shrubbery
>
>
> 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
> <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FTag%3Anatural%3Dshrub&data=04%7C01%7C%7C2f0ccffe226e4fdc022808d8d739e9fb%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637495991306406924%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=1N0psKZZhx5MDMODVsqNmjb6n6Aov5CF6PPQof6Nbgs%3D&reserved=0> .
> 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
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/20210222/0e9018d3/attachment.htm>