On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 22:34, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 22:13, Alan Mackie <aamac...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 at 12:05, Paul Allen <pla16...@gmail.com> 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&mlon=-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
