Talk:Tag:natural=scrub

untitled

The mapnik symbol looks more like marsh/bog. Maybe a small bushy type symbol would be better?

This should be reported to https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto if that is still a problem Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

scrub as way?

Taginfo shows that it is used as a linear way. RicoZ (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Taginfo only knows about the 3 primitivy type (node, way and relation), in this case, a way can also be an area (when closed), and a relation can be an area (with the right tags and members). So nothing is wrong. --Sanderd17 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

scrub for artificial shrubberies

Should this be used for planted (artificial) shrubberies, for example when mapping a park? Philip1201 (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I've often wondered the same myself. Bunches of planted shrubs and trees in city areas are generally a problem from what I can see. If they are not in a park, then there seem to be no good tags for them. The present tags do not seem to be well matched to represent small, managed but relatively natural areas. Deuar (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd saw emphatically NO! Not the same thing at all. Extending the meaning of a tag unfortunately means that all areas mapped with a specific meaning lose that and it has to be re-established by additional tags. Probably in the short-term use landuse=shrubbery (by analogy to landuse=flowerbed), but in practice we could do with a specific set of tags for specific features of gardens & parks based around a common key. SK53 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps use landcover=shrub. The land is covered by the shrub, but the land use may be parkland, botanic gardens etc etc. Tag what it is, a land cover. Warin61 (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Transition between mapping scrub to other land covers

Where is the change between an area of trees and a scrub area? With scattered trees in scrub I take the view of what has the most area covered, if it is trees then I map as trees, if scrub then map as scrub. I have the same view for scrub to heath. Warin61 (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I believe most mappers determine the primary feature based on what type of vegetation covers the majority of the area. --Jeisenbe (talk) 02:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Distinguishing scrub from heath

On the heath discussion page there is a good discussion to help distinguish between scrub and heath. Talk:Tag:natural=heath --Peace2 (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Defining scrub (the States)

In the States (or at least Florida) scrub means stunted trees, not "dominated by bushes" so I think that the description should be altered somewhat. --Floridaeditor (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The first line of the wiki page currently is "used to tag areas of uncultivated land covered with shrubs, bushes or stunted trees" - what would you like to change? --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The second paragraph contains "dominated by bushes". The first line is more universal, the second paragraph is more specific and less universal. I think the second paragraph could be an example rather than a requirement? Warin61 (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Questioned template for shrubbery section

Yes, described situation is controversial. But is something missing from the description of the shrubbery situation? Is text itself still controversial? Can we remove this warning template? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it was added because of a disagreement with the statement that people use natural=scrub for cultivated shrubs outside of the Netherlands (despite the references pointing to some examples of the contrary). There seem to be plenty of natural=scrub all around the world which are not wild/uncultivated at all though. --JeroenHoek (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I concur that the template is not really useful there - the text describes the different views that exist on the should-be and de-facto meaning of the tag correctly and there seems to be no disagreement on that. --Imagico (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny, JeroenHoek, and Imagico: I did some extensive overdrive turbo queries and panning on the map. All of Austria, Berlin, Antwerpen, Kraków, etc.) Usage of nat=scrub for cultivated bushes is far from "de facto", in some region perhaps (NL), and there, if you look closely, almost all of the uses stem from a very limited number of dedicated and prolific micro-mappers and they did not start long ago but fairly recently. It is not too late now, to save scrub in the concise meaning. The account given on the page right now does muddy the waters much more than advertise shrubbery as an alternative. The distinction was coined as following the wood/forest scheme, but looking at the data, mappers are actually quite capable to distinguish scrub from manicured hedges. --Hungerburg (talk) 06:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I put the template there, because the statement says, that the usage of "natural=scrub" for manicured hedges is a matter of "point of view" - this is not a good way to guide people to look for alternatives. I was also the first person, to mention "nat=scrubbery" as an alternative, in another section of the page.

I still think, the big yellow box makes sense: On the recent proposal page at least one person mentioned, that they will continue to use nat=scrub for urban greenery, no matter if the proposal fails to become accepted, as long as other tags do not render. For them, this is just the green brush (no pun intended.) On the Netherlands - please look at NL, e.g. Hoorn https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1b8J - You will not find many places like that elsewhere. --Hungerburg (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

"at least one person mentioned, that they will" - yes, situation is controversial. But this not mean that information on this page automatically is "questioned, contended or controversial" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

"this is not a good way to guide people to look for alternatives" - as far as I know it accurately describes the current situationMateusz Konieczny (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

No, the paragraph does not describe the current situation. It creates the impression of "two conflicting standpoints", one of which is in direct conflict with the description given in the article here and which failed to get enough approval in a vote to change said description. Contrary to what the questioned paragraph implies, they are not on equal foot. The wiki should be concerned with documenting actual use, not the opinions of a few people. Please look e.g. here in PL Kraków https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1b8I - how many of those patches would you consider "cultivated shrubbery" instead? (I see some in the Old Town.) Please look at the aearial of https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/387835590 - which is referenced from the paragraph as a sample for the use being spread all over the world: What I see there is mostly a tree row mapped as an area. What else do we want to map as "scrub" in the future? --Hungerburg (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

"Please look e.g. here in PL Kraków https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1b8I - how many of those patches would you consider "cultivated shrubbery" instead?" - actually, almost none. https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/563396469 https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/918689260 are among rare exceptions (this kind of feature right now is mostly not mapped there) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Would you be willing to retag the shrubberies found as such? So the shrubbery tag gets some more international use. I just did that for my local region, and I found four (4) - In the starting set from overpass (1200 itmes, 22.5km²), there were much more obvious tagging errors (grasslands, gardens, woods, … tagged as scrub) than shrubberies. --Hungerburg (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

"Would you be willing to retag the shrubberies found as such?" - no, I have massive list of projects in OSM that are not related to highly controversial parts where progress is unlikely. Also, I am not really sure which tagging I prefer anyway Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

"It creates the impression of "two conflicting standpoints"" "Contrary to what the questioned paragraph implies, they are not on equal foot." while proposal failed vote, more people supported it than opposed. There are actually two conflicting viewpoints Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

When I wrote "not on equal foot", that does not mean, that there is no conflict. I simply referred to millions of mappings, that meet the documentation, as it is written, contra some tens of thousands, that do not. The practice described in contested paragraph gets heavily applied in the Netherlands, which houses a sizeable amount of them. For someone from there, it may look true. The reason thereof, not the least, because mappers there copy paint from a governmental vector map, and OSM has no tag to map hedges as areas. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:natural%3Dshrubbery for context. BTW, most of those mappings stem from a relatively small number of mappers, which are very prolific though. Everywhere else I looked, the practice is nowhere as common, not even close, not even in densely mapped parts of Berlin. The contested statement does not merit to be mentioned in this article. Perhaps, if your goal is to turn "natural=scrub" into "landcover=bushes"? Perhaps in the Netherlands version, it might make sense to have it. --Hungerburg (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2021 (UTC)