[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shrubbery

Bert -Araali- Van Opstal bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Thu Feb 25 19:58:00 UTC 2021


On 25/02/2021 21:39, Vincent van Duijnhoven wrote:
> In my opinion, all three examples given would fit under the new 
> proposed natural tag.

> About the first one, I thought with mapping then individually you 
> meant mapping them as point. You are talking about mapping each bush a 
> polygon. it is up to the mapper to decide whether to do such micro 
> mapping but no matter if the they are tagged individually as polygon 
> or all as one, natural=shrubbery would fit here.
I completely disagree Vincent, shrubbery never refers to a single shrub 
or bush.  Shrubbery always refers to an area in landscaping with 
multiple plants. In English a single plant is either a bush or a shrub. 
Maybe you should think about how you are going to translate this in your 
own language, do you speak dutch ?

scrub = struikgewas or the less known schrobben it describes a group, 
French= frotter, German = Gebüsch or Shrubben, Swahili = kusugua .... 
All languages have mostly plural words.

shrubs / bushes = struiken it describes a group, not struik, struiken, 
French=arbustes or des buissons, German = Sträucher, not Strauch, 
Swahili = vichaka, not kichaka ... plural, because you want to use it on 
an area consisting of multiple ones.  Leave the natural=shurb or 
natural=bush for the single and thus singular used to be nodes only.

shrubbery = ? Don't know any Dutch word other the struikgewas for that, 
same as scrub, French = arbustes, same as shrubs, no specific word, 
German =Gebüsch maybe, same as scrub ?  Swahili = I don't know any word 
for that, we would just copy shrubbery as it has no equivalent. All 
singular words to describe a group of plants. So your semantic argument 
would exactly be the opposite in other languages ?  And we do want our 
wiki to be translated, into languages in which many people don't even 
speak Englsih, the word is just a sound, has no more meaning then a 
group of letters.


>
> About the second one, it has no distinct barrier function like for 
> example a hedge around a building. It is clear this is meant for 
> decorative purposes.
>
> About the third one, I indeed mapped that one as natural=scrub. 
> Technically, it has a barrier function because it forces you to take 
> another route but it is meant purely decorative here to fill the 
> space. Natural=scrub then comes closest but it is of course not a 
> natural, wild feature so it should be tagged with the proposed tag.

But when you look at the barrier you skip again an essential "technical" 
definition, a barrier is LINEAR.  So because it is not linear makes it 
not a hedge + it has a barrier function, but it's appearance is not 
linear.  Barrier is described with 2 criteria: bariier/border/boundary 
(=function) AND not or LINEAR, mainly in a line, so one of the other, 
you could except 2 lines, but surely NOT many lines (=appearnce !).  
Same like a tree row is not a forest, no one calls a forest  an area 
with many tree rows, no its a row, it's linear, a hedge is linear.

So shrubs = a group of shrubs and bushes ............... , NOT shrub= a 
group of shrubs and bushes........ sound silly doesn't it ?


What do you have in mind as definition criteria at this stage?


Landcover or natural, I would say both, they are both different tagging 
principles which both have very good arguments to co-exist, not to 
favour one to the other, not to deprecate on or the other.  One uses one 
them from the perspective you are mapping from or mapping for.  
Landcover=shrubs should be defined also together with natural=shrubs.


Greetings,


Bert Araali

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Van:* Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> *Verzonden:* donderdag 25 februari 2021 19:21
> *Aan:* Tag discussion, strategy and related tools 
> <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - shrubbery
> Am Do., 25. Feb. 2021 um 18:42 Uhr schrieb Vincent van Duijnhoven 
> <vvanduijnhoven at outlook.com <mailto:vvanduijnhoven at outlook.com>>:
>
>     Mapping decorative shrubs individually like the ones on the
>     example images in the proposal is not doable. You can not trace
>     the center of most of these bushes like you can with trees.
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> you could map individual shrubs with a polygon. It might make sense in 
> cases like these where shape matters: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Green_trees_and_shrubs_in_Shinjuku_Gyoen_National_Garden,_Tokyo,_Japan,_a_sunny_day_with_blue_sky.jpg 
> <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AGreen_trees_and_shrubs_in_Shinjuku_Gyoen_National_Garden%2C_Tokyo%2C_Japan%2C_a_sunny_day_with_blue_sky.jpg&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cfe13a811888641a36c5708d8d9ba5ec7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637498741824035185%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=CXecTE06WTj1u73xQqtMHA7TMgrY%2BgF2zRkAgjLvK%2FE%3D&reserved=0>
>
> In this case I believe it would fit under barrier=hedge: 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Example_2_landuse_bush.jpg 
> <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AExample_2_landuse_bush.jpg&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cfe13a811888641a36c5708d8d9ba5ec7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637498741824045140%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=F4vKokJLQo3mPfzM9t4VJWlMr7HpFfPK8taDl%2BfdTF8%3D&reserved=0> 
>
>
> Despite what the wiki says, shrubs like these are probably currently 
> mapped with natural=scrub
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Example_1_landuse_bush.jpg 
> <https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.openstreetmap.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AExample_1_landuse_bush.jpg&data=04%7C01%7C%7Cfe13a811888641a36c5708d8d9ba5ec7%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637498741824045140%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=DWPpfxjemp0p8uLZwVGaxVS9Beo51yy0is8VfsmzXRM%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210225/6380ab6c/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list