Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery, Tag:waterway=sluice gate, Tag:landcover=water, Tag:landcover=shrubs, Tag:landcover=sand, Tag:waterway=slReviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=water, Tag:landcover=shrubs, Tag:landcover=greenery, Tag:landcover=sand, Natural landscape, Exceptional trafficuice gate, Natural landscape, Exceptional traffic

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery, Tag:waterway=sluice gate, Tag:landcover=water, Tag:landcover=shrubs, Tag:landcover=sand, Tag:waterway=slReviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=water, Tag:landcover=shrubs, Tag:landcover=greenery, Tag:landcover=sand, Natural landscape, Exceptional trafficuice gate, Natural landscape, Exceptional traffic

Mateusz Konieczny-3
I recently edited some of this pages (primarily mentioning that competing tags
are used 50 to 50 000 times more often).

I would welcome review of this pages (and edits where necessary).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dgreenery
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Natural_landscape
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Exceptional_traffic
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dvillage_green#Tagging_controversy


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery, Tag:waterway=sluice gate, Tag:landcover=water, Tag:landcover=shrubs, Tag:landcover=sand, Tag:waterway=slReviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=water, Tag:landcover=shrubs, Tag:landcover=greenery, Tag:landcover=sand, Natural landscape, Exceptional trafficuice gate, Natural landscape, Exceptional traffic

Marc Gemis
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:30 PM Mateusz Konieczny
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I recently edited some of this pages (primarily mentioning that competing tags
> are used 50 to 50 000 times more often).
>
> I would welcome review of this pages (and edits where necessary).
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dgreenery

This one was created after a discussion on the Dutch forum. The
problem is that there is no tag to add areas with a mixture of plants.
landuse=village_green is often misused for that.
It's a very long discussion over many years, but the idea for
landcover=greenery came up around here :
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=755300#p755300

> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dsluice_gate

The person that added this page, is not happy with
waterway=flow_control; flow_control=sluice_gate
(discussion on Belgian Forum:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66728 )

Both threads are in Dutch, but I hope this info gives you an idea on
the reason for the pages.

regards

m.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery, Tag:waterway=sluice gate, Tag:landcover=water, Tag:landcover=shrubs, Tag:landcover=sand, Tag:waterway=slReviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=water, Tag:landcover=shrubs, Tag:landcover=greenery, Tag:landcover=sand, Natural landscape, Exceptional trafficuice gate, Natural landscape, Exceptional traffic

François Lacombe-2
Hi

Le mer. 17 juil. 2019 à 15:07, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dsluice_gate

The person that added this page, is not happy with
waterway=flow_control; flow_control=sluice_gate
(discussion on Belgian Forum:
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66728 )

I'm sorry I can't be part of Ducth discussions.
Both waterway=flow_control + flow_control=sluice_gate and waterway=sluice_gate aren't properly described on wiki and used respectively about 500 and 250 times each.

As a reviewed key valve=gate exists, I'd be in favor of a third possibility : waterway=valve + valve=gate
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:valve%3Dgate (I know one of the examples involves a sluice gate and described as pipeline=valve).
This would be consistent with pipeline=valve (equivalent of flow control device) + valve=gate.
waterway=valve would be designed for every situation where pipeline=valve isn't suitable (i.e when the duct isn't a pipeline, for free flow canals, tunnels and so on...)

All the best

François

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Sluice gate vs valve (was Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery, Tag:waterway=sluice gate, Tag:landcover=water, Tag:landcover=shrubs, Tag:landcover=sand, Tag:waterway=slReviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=water, Tag:landcover=shrubs, Tag:landcover=greenery, Tag:landcover=sand, Natural landscape, Exceptional trafficuice gate, Natural landscape, Exceptional traffic)

Marc Gemis
Is the second picture a valve ?
https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-sluice-gate.htm  This page calls it
sluice gate. I'm not familiar with the terminology, so perhaps experts
can enlighten me.

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 8:23 PM François Lacombe
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Hi
>
> Le mer. 17 juil. 2019 à 15:07, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> a écrit :
>>
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dsluice_gate
>>
>> The person that added this page, is not happy with
>> waterway=flow_control; flow_control=sluice_gate
>> (discussion on Belgian Forum:
>> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=66728 )
>
>
> I'm sorry I can't be part of Ducth discussions.
> Both waterway=flow_control + flow_control=sluice_gate and waterway=sluice_gate aren't properly described on wiki and used respectively about 500 and 250 times each.
> A proposal remains about the first https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/sluice_gate
>
> As a reviewed key valve=gate exists, I'd be in favor of a third possibility : waterway=valve + valve=gate
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:valve%3Dgate (I know one of the examples involves a sluice gate and described as pipeline=valve).
> This would be consistent with pipeline=valve (equivalent of flow control device) + valve=gate.
> waterway=valve would be designed for every situation where pipeline=valve isn't suitable (i.e when the duct isn't a pipeline, for free flow canals, tunnels and so on...)
>
> All the best
>
> François
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sluice gate vs valve (was Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery, Tag:waterway=sluice gate, Tag:landcover=water, Tag:landcover=shrubs, Tag:landcover=sand, Tag:waterway=slReviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=water, Tag:landcover=shrubs, Tag:landcover=greenery, Tag:landcover=sand, Natural landscape, Exceptional trafficuice gate, Natural landscape, Exceptional traffic)

François Lacombe-2
Hi Marc,

Le jeu. 18 juil. 2019 à 07:48, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> a écrit :
Is the second picture a valve ?
https://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-sluice-gate.htm  This page calls it
sluice gate. I'm not familiar with the terminology, so perhaps experts
can enlighten me.

Functionally a valve regulates the flow of a fluid in a given duct. Such a definition would match the gates this topic is about

A piping gate valve involves a sluice which moves in and out the full flow section

Usually, a valve can't be overflowed as it's often about pressurised piping.
In case of openflow canals water may flood surroundings, but IMHO big gates can still be called a valve according to definition.
Wikipedia states that "Valves have many uses, including controlling water for irrigation" then imply valve terminology would be suitable for canals.

In French valve is translated in "vanne" and refers to both kind of devices (piping and water ways)

All the best

François

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:waterway=sluice gate

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by François Lacombe-2
I linked mentioned resources, see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag%3Awaterway%3Dsluice_gate&type=revision&diff=1879862&oldid=1879574

Anyone with experience in mapping such structures is welcomed to further improve this page.

17 Jul 2019, 20:21 by [hidden email]:

Hi

Le mer. 17 juil. 2019 à 15:07, Marc Gemis <[hidden email]> a écrit :

The person that added this page, is not happy with
waterway=flow_control; flow_control=sluice_gate
(discussion on Belgian Forum:

I'm sorry I can't be part of Ducth discussions.
Both waterway=flow_control + flow_control=sluice_gate and waterway=sluice_gate aren't properly described on wiki and used respectively about 500 and 250 times each.

As a reviewed key valve=gate exists, I'd be in favor of a third possibility : waterway=valve + valve=gate
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:valve%3Dgate (I know one of the examples involves a sluice gate and described as pipeline=valve).
This would be consistent with pipeline=valve (equivalent of flow control device) + valve=gate.
waterway=valve would be designed for every situation where pipeline=valve isn't suitable (i.e when the duct isn't a pipeline, for free flow canals, tunnels and so on...)

All the best

François


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Marc Gemis



17 Jul 2019, 15:05 by [hidden email]:
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:30 PM Mateusz Konieczny

I recently edited some of this pages (primarily mentioning that competing tags
are used 50 to 50 000 times more often).

I would welcome review of this pages (and edits where necessary).

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dgreenery

This one was created after a discussion on the Dutch forum. The
problem is that there is no tag to add areas with a mixture of plants.
landuse=village_green is often misused for that.
It's a very long discussion over many years, but the idea for
landcover=greenery came up around here :
Linked at the page.

Definition mentions "variety of plants" -What about case where it is just grass?
Or single species of flower? For example, roundabout where central circle
has red roses planted.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:waterway=sluice gate

François Lacombe-2
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
That's way nicer, thanks Mateusz

Le ven. 19 juil. 2019 à 12:55, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> a écrit :
I linked mentioned resources, see

Anyone with experience in mapping such structures is welcomed to further improve this page.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3


sent from a phone

> On 19. Jul 2019, at 12:58, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Definition mentions "variety of plants" -What about case where it is just grass?


you mean just one species of grass, or a variety of grass?

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

Warin
On 21/07/19 00:05, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 19. Jul 2019, at 12:58, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Definition mentions "variety of plants" -What about case where it is just grass?
>
> you mean just one species of grass, or a variety of grass?
>

Most mappers won't be mapping that. To most it is 'just grass'.

Some roundabout centres look to be all one kind of plant to me, but they could be more than one, they could be seasonal where one plant is dominate for one part of the year and a different pant for anther part of the year.

I don't really care, so how would that be tagged?  The reaction to all this = forget it .. I simply won't map it, far too much talk not enough solution.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

On 21. Jul 2019, at 01:27, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

grass, or a variety of grass?

On 21/07/19 00:05, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

sent from a phone

On 19. Jul 2019, at 12:58, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

Definition mentions "variety of plants" -What about case where it is just grass?

you mean just one species of grass, or a variety of grass?


Most mappers won't be mapping that. To most it is 'just grass'.


grass can have very different appearances, a cornfield is grass, as is a lawn. Mappers also distinguish meadows. For patches of grass as parts of highways (e.g. on traffic islands, embankments or the centres of roundabouts), people use landuse=grass, if you don’t like this there’s landcover=grass.


Cheers Martin 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

Warin
On 21/07/19 10:06, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


On 21. Jul 2019, at 01:27, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

grass, or a variety of grass?

On 21/07/19 00:05, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

sent from a phone

On 19. Jul 2019, at 12:58, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

Definition mentions "variety of plants" -What about case where it is just grass?

you mean just one species of grass, or a variety of grass?


Most mappers won't be mapping that. To most it is 'just grass'.


grass can have very different appearances, a cornfield is grass, as is a lawn. Mappers also distinguish meadows.
To me 'meadows', cornfields and wheat fields are farm fields .. and that is how I would map them. Despite the 'meadow' tag, I view it the same as 'path' vs 'footway'.
For patches of grass as parts of highways (e.g. on traffic islands, embankments or the centres of roundabouts), people use landuse=grass, if you don’t like this there’s landcover=grass.



Back to landcover=greenery.
Is there a proposal for this?

landcover=plants looks like a better tag to me.



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

Paul Allen
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 10:46, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

Back to landcover=greenery.
Is there a proposal for this? 

landcover=plants looks like a better tag to me.

Better, because not ot all plants stay green all year round.

However, it doesn't cover all common situations.  Grass and trees are better tagged as such,
even though they're both plants.  Better tagged as such because they are visually distinctive,
and part of the reason for mapping details like this is because those details may aid
navigation.

I'd argue that the deprecated landcover=shrubs ought to be revived as part of this exercise.
There are obvious visual differences between grass, bedding plants, shrubs and trees.
Using natural=shrub doesn't cut it if you want to map a shrubbery like this:
Admittedly, that looks more like a hedge with area than most shrubberies, but it's not a
match for grass, trees or scrub (it's far more kempt than scrub) and it's not a good match
for plants.  There's no way I could map that as individual shrubs (I can't even tell where
each one is when I'm standing next to them).  Many shrubberies have space to walk between
the individual shrubs, but I couldn't find a picture of one of those.

Could we use landcover=plants for it?  The acid test is giving somebody directions.  "Turn
left after you go past some plants" vs "turn left after you go past some shrubs."  Which would
you use here?

Of course, we could have landcover=plants + plants=shrubs, but then we have to justify
not switching to landcover=plants + plants=grass, landcover=plants + plants=trees, etc.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

Alan Mackie


On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 12:05, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 10:46, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

Back to landcover=greenery.
Is there a proposal for this? 

landcover=plants looks like a better tag to me.

Better, because not ot all plants stay green all year round.

However, it doesn't cover all common situations.  Grass and trees are better tagged as such,
even though they're both plants.  Better tagged as such because they are visually distinctive,
and part of the reason for mapping details like this is because those details may aid
navigation.

I'd argue that the deprecated landcover=shrubs ought to be revived as part of this exercise.
There are obvious visual differences between grass, bedding plants, shrubs and trees.
Using natural=shrub doesn't cut it if you want to map a shrubbery like this:
Admittedly, that looks more like a hedge with area than most shrubberies, but it's not a
match for grass, trees or scrub (it's far more kempt than scrub) and it's not a good match
for plants.  There's no way I could map that as individual shrubs (I can't even tell where
each one is when I'm standing next to them).  Many shrubberies have space to walk between
the individual shrubs, but I couldn't find a picture of one of those.

Could we use landcover=plants for it?  The acid test is giving somebody directions.  "Turn
left after you go past some plants" vs "turn left after you go past some shrubs."  Which would
you use here?

Of course, we could have landcover=plants + plants=shrubs, but then we have to justify
not switching to landcover=plants + plants=grass, landcover=plants + plants=trees, etc.

--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

 
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 12:05, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Using natural=shrub doesn't cut it if you want to map a shrubbery like this:

I'd use barrier=hedge for that one. Yes it's strictly ornamental rather than a livestock barrier, but AFAIK we have no proper distinction for that.

-Alan

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

Paul Allen
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 22:13, Alan Mackie <[hidden email]> wrote:
 
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 12:05, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Using natural=shrub doesn't cut it if you want to map a shrubbery like this:

I'd use barrier=hedge for that one. Yes it's strictly ornamental rather than a livestock barrier, but AFAIK we have no proper distinction for that.

It's not readily apparent from that picture, but it's not a linear feature.  It is a dense shrubbery
covering an area roughly twice as wide as it is long.  Go to 
and look at it in an editor such as iD.  There are three trees in it, but apart from that is is shrubs.
Hedges are linear features (or closed polygonal linear features), not areas, so it's not a hedge.
Despite the three trees, it's not woodland, either.

Also, most shrubberies are not as dense as that, they permit passage.  So even if we had hedge
areas, shrubberies wouldn't qualify as they are not impenetrable.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

Alan Mackie


On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 22:34, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 22:13, Alan Mackie <[hidden email]> wrote:
 
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 12:05, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Using natural=shrub doesn't cut it if you want to map a shrubbery like this:

I'd use barrier=hedge for that one. Yes it's strictly ornamental rather than a livestock barrier, but AFAIK we have no proper distinction for that.

It's not readily apparent from that picture, but it's not a linear feature.  It is a dense shrubbery
covering an area roughly twice as wide as it is long.  Go to 
and look at it in an editor such as iD.  There are three trees in it, but apart from that is is shrubs.
Hedges are linear features (or closed polygonal linear features), not areas, so it's not a hedge.
Despite the three trees, it's not woodland, either.

Also, most shrubberies are not as dense as that, they permit passage.  So even if we had hedge
areas, shrubberies wouldn't qualify as they are not impenetrable.

--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

I agree that we need some tagging for landscaped areas of this type. It isn't exactly natural=scrub. I have also definitely turned whole fields into area-hedges by accident.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 22. Jul 2019, at 00:06, Alan Mackie <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I agree that we need some tagging for landscaped areas of this type. It isn't exactly natural=scrub. I have also definitely turned whole fields into area-hedges by accident



I would also have tagged these as barrier=hedge with area=yes

It isn’t a linear feature by shape, agreed, but it still is in the same scale range than a linear hedge, and hedges are explicitly defined for areas as well

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

Paul Allen
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 09:18, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

It isn’t a linear feature by shape, agreed, but it still is in the same scale range than a linear hedge, and hedges are explicitly defined for areas as well

You're right, the wiki does say that.  I didn't notice that when I looked yesterday.  In which case,
barrier=hedge + area=yes is suitable for that particular example.

However, please bear in mind that the example I gave is not typical of shrubberies.  I used it
partly because I've  been puzzling how to map it for a long while, partly because I didn't have
a better example.  Hedges are intended to be barriers to passage (even if they've fallen into
disrepair and are no longer effective barriers); shrubberies often permit passage, if only
to allow the individual shrubs to be trimmed/shaped.

That said, you've convinced me that I can use barrier=hedge + area=yes to deal with that
particular example, so I'm not inclined to pursue a reactivation of  landuse=shrubs.at this
time.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

Joseph Eisenberg
I don’t usually map such small features; there are so many villages, roads and rivers still missing from Indonesia.

But I wonder is leisure=garden is appropriate for “shrubbery” features, since it is also used for front yards and back yards of private homes, according to a recent thread? This would be areas of shrubs which a not a single linear hedge, and could include adjacent grass and trees etc.

Personally I would think that these would usually be inside a larger land use, like landuse=residential, unless it is a bunch of shrubs in the middle of a roundabout or at the edge of a motorway. In that case it might be part of the highway land use which is not commonly mapped.

It is also possible to use natural=scrub to specify areas of land covered by shrubs - while this is usually found in less managed areas of shrubs, I’ve seen many examples of small patches of scrubs mapped in urban areas in Europe, for example, to map a small triangle of shrubs growing along a road or canal, or between two agricultural fields. So a shrubbery could also be tagged natural=scrub if it isn’t a garden, just like how natural=wood is used for small clumps of trees in urban areas.

Joseph

A shrubbery!
Ni!

(As an American, that line was the first time I ever heard of a “shrubbery”, so the word always sounds rather silly)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 7:21 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 09:18, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

It isn’t a linear feature by shape, agreed, but it still is in the same scale range than a linear hedge, and hedges are explicitly defined for areas as well

You're right, the wiki does say that.  I didn't notice that when I looked yesterday.  In which case,
barrier=hedge + area=yes is suitable for that particular example.

However, please bear in mind that the example I gave is not typical of shrubberies.  I used it
partly because I've  been puzzling how to map it for a long while, partly because I didn't have
a better example.  Hedges are intended to be barriers to passage (even if they've fallen into
disrepair and are no longer effective barriers); shrubberies often permit passage, if only
to allow the individual shrubs to be trimmed/shaped.

That said, you've convinced me that I can use barrier=hedge + area=yes to deal with that
particular example, so I'm not inclined to pursue a reactivation of  landuse=shrubs.at this
time.

--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

Paul Allen
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 03:04, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don’t usually map such small features; there are so many villages, roads and rivers still missing from Indonesia.

I wouldn't generally map a shrubbery either.  A shrubbery in somebody's back garden is just
a garden.  And I generally wouldn't map the back garden either.  But there are two cases where I
might map a shrubbery:

1) It's a large feature visible from the road and it aids navigation if it's on the map.  Such was
the case with the example I gave (I've since mapped it as an area hedge).

2) It's a feature in a garden or park open to the public and is noteworthy in some way.

It is also possible to use natural=scrub to specify areas of land covered by shrubs - while this is usually found in less managed areas of shrubs, I’ve seen many examples of small patches of scrubs mapped in urban areas in Europe, for example, to map a small triangle of shrubs growing along a road or canal, or between two agricultural fields. So a shrubbery could also be tagged natural=scrub if it isn’t a garden, just like how natural=wood is used for small clumps of trees in urban areas.

If it's not in a garden it's not a shrubbery, it's just scrub.  Shrubberies are planned and maintained.

A shrubbery!
Ni!

(As an American, that line was the first time I ever heard of a “shrubbery”, so the word always sounds rather silly)

It sounds silly in British English, too.  Because it is often used in a way that could be interpreted
as meaning several shrubs, and I used to think that's what it meant.  But it's more than that,
somewhat like the distinction between a wood (natural and left to its own devices) and a tree
plantation (man-made, with a view to harvesting the wood).  It may seem strange to use
shrubbery with an article but it's actually incorrect to use it without an article.  Pretty much the
same way that you can refer to "an orangery" or "the orangery" but it's wrong to say "over there
is some orangery."

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging