[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Shrubbery V2

Thu Jul 15 18:28:39 UTC 2021

About the tag cultivated
I always perceived it as a word to indicate human intervention in vegetation in general from the growing of crops to gardening.  That is also what I get when I see wikipedia. Beside, it can be used for more things in OSM, for example the trees you map in the nature. I already acknowledged that cultivated can be used for other tags to and we tried to keep it a bit more general to not tailor it to much to cultivated for shrubbery only. Maybe it is still to specific?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultivation

I don't agree with your statement that for example grazing goats also manicure the shrubs. I associate manicured a lot with humans, just like cultivated.

Gender neutrality
Sharp notice. It will change this.

barrier hedge
It is not only a rendering related issue but also strangly complex tagging. Now, a closed way can be interpreted as either a closed hedge or with area=yes for a filled hedge/shrubbery block. This proposal fixes that by restricting barrier=hedge to only lines and if you want to draw areas use natural=scrub + cultivated=fully. You won't lose the barrier value by mapping a shrubbery as area (see appendix of the proposal). And this is also not tagging for the renderer because we make the tagging easier, it makes it more understandable for data users and yes, it gives carto a change to fix rendering. But only because the tagging becomes easier and is less confusing for mappers. So we also increase the data quality.

natural=tree
We will take a look at it, thanks for the notice

Scrub:shape
See Tobias Knerr his response
________________________________
Van: Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com>
Verzonden: donderdag 15 juli 2021 18:01
Aan: tagging at openstreetmap.org <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Onderwerp: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Shrubbery V2

I admire your persistence. The effort you put in this proposal is above average and shows your dedication and support for OSM.

Sorry for starting a new sub-thread, but it seemed appropriate to express as subjective as possible my comments on the large content in this proposal rather then biased personal opinions and the reactions on those as in the initial opening.

This mail might be rather long, but long proposals ask for long answers, out of respect for the large amount of effort put into it.

Abandoning the concept of a new top level tag surely has my preference.
Still, some issues raised by me and others in the previous versions still persist.

1. semantics: "cultivated", used in a context of "growing" applies to the land or in a context referencing the land and crops or plants grown upon it as a group. It is used in some definitions across OSM correctly. You came close to a much better and correct semantic term: manicured, it might be the gem we are all looking for. It is a common term used in gardening and the shaping of vegetation in general. Any English dictionary can be referenced to support this. So I suggest to use "manicured" as the attribute key instead of "cultivated". Confusion throughout the proposal as you use "landscaped", "cultivation" and "manicured" in the same context to refer to the practice and vegetation you are really targetting: "landscaped" refers to land AND vegetation; "cultivation" refers to land OR land with it's vegetation in a grouped context; "manicured" refers to vegetation ONLY. Please don't mix them.

2. scope:
2a. you describe it to be used as attribute tags (you use the term sub-tags which is fine for me) for natural=scrub. It can be used however on a much larger scope of OSM top level tags. Essentially they can be used on any tag applicable to vegetation. natural=shrub, natural=heath, natural=grass, natural=tree_row, landuse=forest; barrier=hedge etc... In order to get support and approval for this proposal and not make the scope to wide, you describe this as intentional. I fear however this will have the opposite effect as it is strongly related to f.i. natural=shrub. Why not be more bold and describe and test it's more general applicability? I am resistive to any proposals that try to address or invent tagging schemes that are generally applicable, to address specific or niche needs. It grows the need for the use of namespaced keys instead of more general applicable simple keys.
2b. Manicured goes beyond a practice by humans. Also animals manicure vegetation for the purpose of producing food, protection of their nesting places, and even decorative purposes. Often the difference is not obvious for some mappers. To avoid ambiguity and support subjective verifiability, I would prefer a definition that avoids terms referencing only human practices.

3. gender neutrality: the use of "man" is generally discouraged. Use "humans" instead.

4. barrier=hedge. Despite you say that you want to limit the scope, you include a new sub-tag scrub:density, with the intention to make barrier:hedge less contentious. I am afraid you are going to achieve the opposite. First of all this is a completely different issue, not related at all to the shape or anicure of vegetation. It's a rendering related issue, we don't tag for the renderer. Secondly, even if you disagree with the fact that it is purely a rendering issue, you propose a tag that is not specifically targetted at areas and highly subjective. The appendix made it clear what you intend to tag. Density in regard if a barrier can be safely passed. Density is not deterministic to express this. A thorny hedge or hedge made of toxic plants can be very effective as a safe non-passable barrier, even at low density, yet very ineffective for privacy. A very dense hedge made of vegetation with very flexible branches easy and safely to pass but being very effective for privacy.
The choice to use a similar namespaced key for this like existing wood:density and scrub:density seems to avoid ambiguity, but I think it's the contrary because they originate and are used in a different context.

5. appendix.
5a. You conclude that natural=tree is pre-dominantly used for trees planted by humans. This might be the case in your area but I doubt this can be used as a global justification. In areas where I map it is most dominantly used for trees that have grown naturally and often very old. They are the remains, wherever located currently of natural untouched landscapes and often protected by legislation, so the opposite of your statement.
5b. The rendering as an area in Carto is not related to barrier=hedge only. The same issue applies to barrier=wall. You conclude that the motivation to do this by carto brakes rendering of those barriers. Although this is true the key problem and reason, of course to my analysis, is that bariier tags are out of laziness often applied to areas which require different rendering, like landuse and amenity tags. The issue is nt the tagging, but the mapping practice. Linear walls and hedges should be separately mapped by us in OSM, same to walls and hedges which are intended as larger areas. Even if they coincide or overlap with other areas, they should be mapped separately.  It's very difficult to resolve a bad or inconsistent mapping practice with a tag. So this one will not do it either.
5c. We don't bow for Carto's demands, we don't map for the renderer. I am happy and appreciated Carto's comments, as it painfully illustrates inconsistencies in mapping practices in OSM and our failure to do something about it.

Scrub:shape is the only remaining. Why again a namespaced tag for this purpose?

Greetings,

Bert Araali

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210715/e25af287/attachment.htm>