Talk:Proposed features/Tag:natural=flower

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Totally inappropriate to map such things on OSM: too small, too many, too ephemeral, not readily verifiable by other mappers, GPS resolution not adequate. I've been in the field as part of a team counting one flower type in 4 small meadows: we found 26,000. Use one of the numerous open source data collection apps or roll your own. SK53 (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

"Totally inappropriate to map such things on OSM" is depending on your climate... In other areas and for certain flowers this kind of a natural phenomena is worth mapping. It also seems you were assuming this tag would map a specific flower. IMO it would map a place where a certain species of flower blooms, potentially with a season tag. It provides valuable information for hikers and travelers. If my memory serves my right, a few years ago there was a wiki page for "natural=flower", but I cannot find any trace of it. Zstadler (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The discussion needs to be seen in the context of the original proposer also attempting to map "single blades of grass". Maybe the regular appearance of certain flowers in a significant area might be mappable, but then the value would not be singular. There is a page about crop=flowers, but it is used very little. --Polarbear w (talk) 17:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

OK. Let me suggest that we redirect the discussion towards a new/alternative proposal that targets mapping of valuable locations of natural flowers, putting aside "single blades of grass" on one hand, and man-made crops on the other hand. Perhaps natural=flowers would be a better name? Zstadler (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Well it might help if you have an example what you intend to map, even better with pictures. I'd also suggest to take that discussion to the 'tagging' mailing list where it has a wider audience. --Polarbear w (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


Where was this "proposed"? user:EzekielT, you are apparently creating dozens of different tags as you see fit without discussing with the community. This is not acceptable. A flower in particular is totally inappropriate. -- SwiftFast (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll propose it; sorry. I guess I thought it was okay since someone added "natural=fungus": Sincerely, EzekielT (talk), Mon. Jul. 24.

That fungus page was created by a new, inexperienced user. Please do not use that as example.--Polarbear w (talk) 09:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)