[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Shrubbery V2

Jeroen Hoek mail at jeroenhoek.nl
Fri Jul 16 12:41:27 UTC 2021


On 16-07-2021 13:32, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> So i'd vote for extending the landcover hierarchy and work
> on rendering those.

Great! Except that has been tried, and has been, and will likely again,
be voted against or otherwise blocked.

So in effect this stance (not to single your response out, but to sketch
the general problem) results in maintaining the status quo which is:

natural=scrub just means any area of scrub, bushes, and shrubbery.

So what we end up with is these standpoints (amongst others):

* I want to maintain the status quo

* I want landcover=* for such cultivated greenery

* I want landcover=* for any land cover without a meaning (such as
implied natural-ness or man-managed-ness) beyond that

* I want cultivated bushes/shrubbery under a different natural=* key

* I want cultivated bushes/shrubbery under natural=scrub with additional
tags, but not those you are suggesting, and not those that other mapper
is suggesting either

* I want man_made=* for such cultivated greenery

We could draft up a proposal with landcover=* and get your support, but
probably be voted down by half the German mappers for breaking the
existing established way of tagging (i.e., natural=scrub). We tried
natural=shrubbery, and got voted down (in part by aforementioned German
mappers for aforementioned reason). We could do man_made=bushes and get
scolded (and rightly so) for even considering that namespace for a
natural(-ish) feature, and get roasted by Australians for inappropriate
use of the word 'bush'. And so on.

Over the past few years any attempt to move beyond the status quo has
been shot down and blocked, because many mappers active on the
mailing-list hold one standpoint and will vote against any proposal for
another, so that what we end up with is: the status quo. Which,
implicitly just tells mappers to map cultivated greenery with
natural=scrub, natural=wood (or landuse=forest), and landuse=grass, and
effectively map for the renderer in this case, because we have no other
way forward.

Surely we can do better?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210716/bcbbc6ef/attachment.sig>


More information about the Tagging mailing list