[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shrubbery

Wed Feb 24 09:51:12 UTC 2021

Yes, me. I think it's best to keep it as simple and direct as possible, leaving connotations and use out of it and just tag what you see. Then only the values scrub and shrubs remain.

If they are different in aspect, that's what requires describing. If there is doubt in a particular case, then maybe mappers could take apparent or known purpose and maintenance into account to make the choice. 

Again, if there is a mix of flora just filling a space somewhere, if it really doesn't matter what grows there, if it changes rapidly with seasons and maintenance schemes, I would go for the value greenery (Dutch: "groen", a colour used as a collective noun and meaning there is vegetation of some kind").

Peter Elderson

> Op 24 feb. 2021 om 09:34 heeft Vincent van Duijnhoven <vvanduijnhoven at outlook.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 
> For the definition, I only copied the content between "". I intended it be a replacement for the following that is currently in my proposal: 
> 
> Definition:	An area of cultivated decorative shrubs or bushes
> 
>  For the rest of the proposal, I will see how I can write it in a concise way in the proposal so the human factor 
> 
> About the height, I think that mappers are perfectly able to distinguish between heath, bushes and trees without a height indication. The wiki for natural=heath also does not provide a height indication. 
> 
> Besides Bert, are the more people who prefer natural=shrubs over natural=shrubbery?
> 
> Kind regards,
> Vincent
> Van: Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com>
> Verzonden: dinsdag 23 februari 2021 22:47
> Aan: tagging at openstreetmap.org <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Onderwerp: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shrubbery
>  
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210224/08e7de6e/attachment.htm>