+1 Danke. Damit hast Du mein Grundunbehagen in die perfekten Worte gefasst.
Ceterum censeo: natural=scrub + scrub=urban/manicured/maintained/… sollte locker ausreichen, um das Gewünschte zu erzielen.
+1
Sven
Ich würde es nicht so abwertend ausdrücken. Aber trotzdem passt der Vergleich mit natural=wood / landuse=forest: Das Problem der Unterscheidung von nicht trennscharf definiertbaren First-Level-Tags. Ebenso schwierig ist es bei landuse=meadow / natural=grassland / landuse=grass.
Ich bin ein Freund davon, vorhandene Tags so zu erweitern, dass sie präziser werden. In Bezug auf “Gebüsch” könnte ich mir also durchaus Zusatz-Tags vorstellen, mit denen sich darstellen lässt, um was für eine Art von Gebüsch es sich handelt.
Aber so, wie es hier angedacht ist, wird es wieder endlos viele Diskussionen darüber geben, was denn nun shrubery und was scrub ist und jeder wird es ein wenig anders handhaben. Die Folge: Man kann aus den Daten in OSM dann nicht wirklich verlässlich herauslesen, was denn da vor Ort nun wirklich ist.
Ich muss sagen, ich verstehe schon die Intention.
Denn ich habe bisher natural=scrub eher als scrubland (Also mit Büschen bewachsene Fläche verstanden). Nicht als das Buschwerk an sich… Buschland ist eindeutig nicht Busch. Denn Buschland kann auch mal Flecken Gras dazwischen haben. etc. Ein Busch selbst ist durchgehend.
Also ich sähe eher eine Aufweichung hin zu: das + im urbanen Raum (u.a. auch gepflegte Elemente). kritisch.
Was ich mal so gedacht habe, warum nimmt man nicht für Buschland weiter natural=scrub und für Urbanes-Buschwerk hedge? Entweder dieses aus barrier herauslösen oder in natural parallel weiter verwenden… Wäre eine deutlich bessere Unterscheidung auch im Definitionsbereich. mho
Isn’t one of the problems with landuse=forest and natural=wood that there are 6 different ways to tag forest and whether they are used for forestry? For shrubbery we don’t have that problem/ Natural=scrub for the wilder scrublands and natural=shrubbery for the manicured shrubbery often in urban environments.
True, there are indeed sometimes edge cases but OSM benefits from the distinction of these three tags. Imagine al three tags and their subtags to be combined into a single tag like while they all three have different meanings. This is the same for natural=shrubbery. natural=shrubbery also offers a nice solution for areas currently tagged with barrier=hedge + area=yes. Not only because carto dropped render support but also because the data becomes more objective and thus better to use for data users.
Edit: if the distinction between natural=shrubbery and natural=scrub is not clear yet in the proposal, can you maybe explain where so we can take a look at it and improve it?
Do I understand this sentence correctly that you just want to extend the current definition of natural=scrub to include shrubbery in urban settings?
Isn’t that what we are doing? natural=scrub for the scrublands and natural=shrubbery for the manicured hedges and shrubbery. A hedge can (and often is) also a shrubbery so it can’t be seperated if that is what you mean.
No, not yet, but if YOU continue like this exactly this problem will arise in OSM.
Especially in urban areas, you can’t tell the two apart for sure. There are very often natural-looking, but completely man-made shrubs! As for tagging: “Less is more!”
Sven
Yes, I think it makes sense to distinguish between scrubland (landscape feature) and bushes as planting per se. The two only have something to do with each other in that the second is one (of several) components of the first. Shrubland consists not only of bushes, but also grass (high or less high) and taller woody plants (tree-like shrubs such as the common hazel, trees).
Yes, but my thought process: We have already a etablished tag for hedges in the urban using - why not adapt that spelling. I see often areas with barrier=hedge and area=yes (what is really false, but a good point to think forward)
And we tried to distinguish them by saying “if actively manicured” then natural=shrubbery because the wild scrublands are not manicured. They can be managed (for example managing nature reserve), just like natural=shrubbery and we agreed with the first vote that that resulted in a to broad definition. You can however assess whether something is manicured ( and a somewhat wilder look is allowed). Just like landuse=meadow|grass and natural=grassland, also for natural=scrub|shrubbery it makes sense to have seperate, first level tags for that allow for different tagging, where with natural=shrubbery you can focus more on tagging specifically for landscaping. And agree, there will always be some egde cases where you can discuss about but for the majority, with decent explanation and examples on wiki, you can say whether it is natural=shrubbery or natural=scrub.
The thing here is, barrier=hedge + area=yes is not getting its render support back and because a hedge is also shrubbery, it would be better to move hedge to a seperate tag, only used for tagging areas and keeping barrier=hedge only for lines.