[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Shrubbery V2

[Florian Lohoff]

Hi Vincent,

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 06:03:32AM +0000, Vincent van Duijnhoven wrote:
> Hello everybody.
> 
> Jeroen and I changed the shrubbery proposal to be an extension to
> natural=scrub via the tag cultivated=* and some other subtags. We hope
> this proposal finds more support than natural=shrubbery.
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/shrubbery
> 
> Please discuss this proposal on its Wiki Talk page.

Just a little impression - I might be completely on the wrong path of
usage. For me the top level tag hierarchies landuse/natural had the
differentiation that one of them describes large swaths of space of
beeing in _use_ by humans, whereas the other described large swaths of
area of space humans do not interact with or at lease dont USE.
For me this was the high level classification of space e.g. think of
polygons in the multi-thousand-square-meter size. So for me the natural
impression was that landuse and natural may neither overlap themselves,
nor the other.

The way we develop tagging landuse/natural now is that we start extending
natural/landuse to be some "micro-mapping" tags e.g. describe individual
parts of a garden at the "single-plant" level.

I dont agree with this.

My preferred way would be a hierarchy in polygons and tagging. So we
classify a large swath as residential and then layer polygons on top (or
better - strictly within) which may describe fine granular what this is
specifically. A private garden is still part of the residential area and
not some landuse=village_green or some other strange tagging concepts
people come up with to get it "green in the map"

So as long as tagging concepts try to abuse landuse/natural for
micro-mapping purposes e.g. low-number-of-m² objects i'd vote no.

I dont oppose micromapping per-se but i am opposing the abuse of tags
thought for large area classification.  I am a fan of the distinction
between a (non) usage of large space and its individual small granular
appearance. So i'd vote for extending the landcover hierarchy and work
on rendering those.

We do the same in other hierarchy overlaps e.g. an amenity=parking
within a landuse=commercial. We did not abuse landuse to "landuse=parking,
comercially=yes". The parking still belongs to the landuse=commercial
and is describing how i would expect the appearance to be for that 
area within the landuse=commercial. So then layering a landcover=bushes,
cultivated=yes within the landuse=commercial or even the
amenity=parking would be the right thing to do. Even the single bushes
are part of the parking lot which itself is part of the larger
landuse=commercial.

Flo
PS: I know i stretch far with this opinion and some established tagging
collides with that. But i am describing my view and a possible
development direction for landuse/natural/landcover hierarchies.
-- 
Florian Lohoff                                                     f at zz.de
  Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210716/f9fc8b2b/attachment.sig>