[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Shrubbery V2

[Peter Elderson]

To pick one issue: that mappers might be confused by lookalike values.
Trying to think as a data user.

A node can be natural=shrub. It's a shrub.
An area can be natural=shrubs. It's an area of shrubs.
An area can be natural=scrub or scrubland. It's an area of scrub or
scrubland.

Tagging errors:

If a node was tagged natural=shrubs, I would assume shrub was meant.
If a node was tagged natural=scrub, I probably would ignore it.
If an area was tagged natural=shrub, I would assume shrubs was meant.

Or just ignore the errors; the mapper or another mapper will notice the
thing does not behave as expected and correct it until it does.

As a validator in an editor, I could ask "Did you mean..." and correct it.

It's also very simple to detect with qa-tools, or a challenge driven
project.

No biggie, I think.

Peter Elderson


Op do 15 jul. 2021 om 21:19 schreef Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com>:

> On Thursday, 15 July 2021, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On 15 Jul 2021, at 10:24, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I didn't think you could come up with something that made less semantic
> sense than your previous proposal but you have surpassed yourself.
> >
> >
> > Paul, no need to combine your criticism with an introductory insult.
> This could have been said the same way without personifying the statement.
>
> You're right, I never learn.  When somebody egregiously makes the same
> mistake after having it extensively pointed out to them the first time they
> made it, I bring it to their attention.  Which makes me as guilty as him.
> And you, despite your attempt to cloak it in politeness, nearly as guilty.
>
>
> > I agree with the notion that this would be introducing semantical
> problems, at least from what I have understood the term “scrub” means, and
> its application on manicured shrubs in a garden, maybe it is still not too
> much of a stretch.
>
> For me that would be far too much of a stretch.  In appearance and in
> typical species those are very different.  Using scrub to describe shrubs
> would be like using landuse=grass for shrubs by adding tags to say that the
> grass is tall, has very thick stems, and is bushy
>
> >I think I would appreciate a tag for individual items (natural=shrub),
>
> We already have that.  We need an area form because standard carto stopped
> rendering area hedges (which was always a vile kluge anyway).
>
> > so that natural=scrub remains a tag for areas,
>
> It is a great tag for areas of scrub.  Not so good for areas that are not
> scrub.
>
> > and as there is already a well established tag for hedges (barrier=hedge
> for which the suggested subtag “cultivated” could make sense)
>
>
> I guarantee you that you have never seen a hedge, no matter how neglected
> and unkempt, that did not start out cultivated.  It's not just a matter of
> planting an appropriate species in a row, saplings have the stems partially
> severed so the tops can be bent at 90 degrees to touch the next sapling.
>
> It doesn't seem sensible to tag how long since a hedge was last trimmed as
> that could change tomorrow.  An unmaintained hedge might become passable at
> some point or points along its length but that would require a ground
> survey to find out, and might be fixed the next day with some barbed wire.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210715/0f5a9f90/attachment-0001.htm>