[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Shrubbery V2

[Vincent van Duijnhoven]

Why and how do you think cultivated can be mis-used? Maybe we can adjust the proposal based on that. The reason why natural=shrubs was not used in the first shrubbery proposal was that the three mentioned values are almost the same words. That might cause confusion.

Also, I remember a lot of people beeing agains natural=shrubbery because they wanted to extend natural=scrub to keep it simple and that it was not always clear when to use scrub or shrubbery. How does natural=shrubs deal with that?
________________________________
Van: Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
Verzonden: vrijdag 23 juli 2021 5:12
Aan: Tag discussion, strategy and related tools <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Onderwerp: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Shrubbery V2




On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 at 23:54, Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com<mailto:pelderson at gmail.com>> wrote:
For now, I would welcome an explicit consensus that
* landuse maps the use of the land,
* natural maps areas or objects that grow or flow of themselves, whether the object or its growth or flow is [hu]man[aged|_made] or not.

Yep!

So now, closing in on the various shrubbery and scrub proposals, I think natural=scrub (area), natural=shrub (node), natural=shrubs (area),

I think those three, (with mentioning that =scrub should also be an area) sum it up nicely, together with

density=* specifies the density of the shrubs for the area.

"cultivated" isn't a bad idea, but I can see it being mis-used badly

 Thanks

Graeme

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210723/d854975e/attachment.htm>