Re: [Tagging] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 03:04, Joseph Eisenberg 
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!
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=69iB-xy0u4A
>
> (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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=69iB-xy0u4A

(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  wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 09:18, Martin Koppenhoefer 
> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 09:18, Martin Koppenhoefer 
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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 22. Jul 2019, at 00:06, Alan Mackie  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

[Alan Mackie]

On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 22:34, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 22:13, Alan Mackie  wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 12:05, Paul Allen  wrote:
>>
>>> Using natural=shrub doesn't cut it if you want to map a shrubbery like
>>> this:
>>> https://goo.gl/maps/LwNZ2Sk1X8fKxt3j9
>>>
>>
>> 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
>
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.08946=-4.64726#map=19/52.08946/-4.64726
> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 22:13, Alan Mackie  wrote:

>
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 12:05, Paul Allen  wrote:
>
>> Using natural=shrub doesn't cut it if you want to map a shrubbery like
>> this:
>> https://goo.gl/maps/LwNZ2Sk1X8fKxt3j9
>>
>
> 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
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=52.08946=-4.64726#map=19/52.08946/-4.64726
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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

[Alan Mackie]

On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 12:05, Paul Allen  wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 10:46, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 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:
> https://goo.gl/maps/LwNZ2Sk1X8fKxt3j9
> 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
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 12:05, Paul Allen  wrote:

> Using natural=shrub doesn't cut it if you want to map a shrubbery like
> this:
> https://goo.gl/maps/LwNZ2Sk1X8fKxt3j9
>

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

[Paul Allen]

On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 10:46, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> 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:
https://goo.gl/maps/LwNZ2Sk1X8fKxt3j9
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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

[Warin]

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



On 21. Jul 2019, at 01:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> 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 
mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

On 21. Jul 2019, at 01:27, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 19. Jul 2019, at 12:58, Mateusz Konieczny  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Reviewing wiki pages - Tag:landcover=greenery

[Mateusz Konieczny]

17 Jul 2019, 15:05 by marc.ge...@gmail.com:

> On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:30 PM Mateusz Konieczny
>  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 
> 
>
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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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:landcove

[François Lacombe]

Hi

Le mer. 17 juil. 2019 à 15:07, Marc Gemis  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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] 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:landcove

[Marc Gemis]

On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 2:30 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] 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=wa

[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 

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

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

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dshrubs
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Dsand 

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
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging