Talk:Vegetation

Where should lawns come, natural or landuse. I'm thinking form the point of view that there are large grassed area's witihn other sites. (airports, recreational areas, for example) Should these be landuse=grass, natural=grass, landuse=lawn.??? Martin Renvoize 17:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Now lawns and grass areas within places like airports or roundabouts are usually mapped as landuse=grass --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

scrub_strip ?

as there is already a natural=tree_row I think there should also be something like natural=scrub_strip. Or should natural=scrub be extended to apply also for linear ways? RicoZ (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The tag barrier=hedge is used for linear, managed rows of shrubs and is drawn as a way. You can also map natural=scrub as a thin, long area, for areas of shrubs which are not like a hedge. --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup request

Main discussion here Xxzme (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please cleanup this page, or remove it, really not needed. There are a lot of tags that are not about vegetation but about the use of land. The descriptions are so short that they sometimes lack essential requirements for the keys, and all together pages like this duplicate and multiply documentation, so they make it in the end harder to find information rather than easier. --Dieterdreist (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

keep reference to landcover

Recently landcover was removed from the page. I believe an overview page about vegetation should mention the landcover tag because it deals with vegetation and some mappers are using it. —Dieterdreist (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There are more than 100 uses of: landcover= trees*, =grass*, =scrub, =tree, =grassland, =greenery*, =bushes, =wetland... etc. (*wiki page in at least 1 language)

But there are also many more natural= vegetation values which are not included. With >1000 uses, eg: =marsh*, =grass, =shrub*, =tree_group*. With more than 100: =forest, =bush, =tree_stump*, =hedge, =moor*, =swamp, =food_bush, =meadow, =garden, =woodland, =plant*, =sparsewood. (*wiki documentation)

Would it improve the page to add any of these tags? No. They are duplicates of established vegetation tags. Like Landcover and Landuse, this page should show the tags that are the "de facto" standards for the major types of vegetation. Adding synonyms like landcover=scrub, =tree, =grass, =trees would not be helpful, when the standard tags are 10 to 100 times more common. --Jeisenbe (talk)

In my reading, the natural key is generally about natural landforms and features. The few outliers like sand and mud that describe material and surface properties should be discouraged. A tree group is distinct from a tree (if mapped as an entity) and not adding it despite significant usage seems arbitrary. (on the other hand I would rather suggest to use the generic group relation for it, with the individual trees as members, if they had a common name as a group). Natural is not so much about vegetation, although it may allow to deduct indirectly a specific kind vegetation (e.g. in the case of natural =wood). —-Dieterdreist (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)