[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shrubbery

[Bert -Araali- Van Opstal]

Vincent I appreciate you try to simplify the definition. However it 
takes us back to the previous discussions that there was no common 
ground to justify creating a separate top level value, neither in 
natural, neither in landcover keys.

How does this shortened version make the difference clear between scrub 
and shrubs.  You deleted the human intervention aspect, which as far I 
see it, was the initial justification to create a separate value in the 
first place. So if I read this definition how should I determine the 
difference between the long time existing scrub and the new shrubs ? 
Instead of filling in and clarifying to avoid "grey" zone definition you 
increased it.

By deleting the height criteria, not just from scrub and shrubs but also 
from heath, how can you explain a common mapper or a scientist what 
makes one different from the other?  So if I stand in front of a large 
area of heather growing up to my knees, how should I decide if this is 
heath or scrub or shrubs ?

Same with wood or trees.  I stand in front of a 10m high thicket, how 
should I call it ? If I ask my 8 year old daughter she calls it a large 
bush, however the centre of the thicket is a natural grown tree with a 
trunk of 0.5m wide. You tell me, I don't know. On top of that, in 
scientific studies, all landcover studies it is the most distinctive 
criterium to distinguish scrub and shrubs from trees or wood. Are we 
simply going to ignore that ?

I am not saying my proposed improvement is perfect, lot's of room for 
improvement, but I don't think shortening, deleting key criteria is 
going to help us find a consensus.


Example for our German speaking community: 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratification_(vegetation)#/media/File:Stockwerke_wald.png 
and for the English speaking friends: "The vertical stratification of a 
community is determined largely by the life forms of plants their size , 
branching and leaves which is influenced by the vertical gradient of 
light. Vertical classification of vegetation in a forest showing the 
tree, shrub and herb layers and the forest floor", and yes, wikipedia is 
not the only resource I contacted.  So for scrub definitively, we need 
stratification. For shrubs, as being the human intervened version of it, 
we need stratification. For the common mapper, non botanists, non 
gardeners, we need stratification, we need to include the human 
intervention criteria.


Feel free, and please, convince us of the contrary.


I don't see any problem both in pronunciation and in writing between 
scrub and shrubs to distinguish one from the other. Anyway, maybe it is 
a good thing so users, ones they want to start using it, will go to our 
wiki to find out what is the difference, being the human intervention 
criteria... ?


Greetings,


Bert Araali

On 23/02/2021 22:33, Vincent van Duijnhoven wrote:
> This definition seems also fine to me
>
>     For *natural=shrubs* "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."
>
>
>
> It wasn't intended to include a path in the definition, it can be ignored.
>
>>     FWIW, I disagree with the contention by @Vincent that a
>>     "shrubbery" MUST contain a path.  He cites wikipedia as his
>>     source, but IMHO wikipedia is not infallible.  I could envisage a
>>     garden containing a lawn (managed grass), with a collection of
>>     planted and managed shrubs beyond it, which would be called a
>>     "shrubbery".  I also see little point in mapping an area in OSM
>>     to say that "in this area are some tended plants and some paths",
>>     but not mapping the paths.
>     True. But we would advise to tag shrubbery due to it's
>     controversy, by attribution as a specific form of shrub.  Any
>     paths should be mapped separately as paths running through the
>     area tagged as *natural=shrubs* and *shrubs=shrubbery*.
>
>
>
> A valid argument though cat and car are different things. Scrub, shrub 
> and shrubs are different, similar words for almost the same thing. 
> Without wiki, are the values the descriptive enough?
>
>>     It is unfortunate that "scrub" and "shrub" differ by only one
>>     letter, but we manage to distinguish between a "car" and a "cat" ;-) 
>
>
>     Haha, very well said. But also consider that most languages have
>     no decent distinguished translation for "shrubbery".  Scrub is
>     singular, as it describes a single area or group of plants. Shrubs
>     is plural and a keen mapper should be informed and notice this
>     difference.
>
>     @Martin:
>
>
>>     if it is not woody (specific low growing bamboo), it would be
>>     "grass", or not? (I am not a botanic, as you may see from this
>>     sentence).
>
> Kind regards,
> Vincent
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210224/0e402963/attachment.htm>