Proposal:Shrubbery

shrubbery
Proposal status:	Rejected (inactive)
Proposed by:	Cartographer10, JeroenHoek
Tagging:	natural=shrubbery Data item
Applies to:
Definition:	Cultivated, maintained, or otherwise managed land covered with shrubs, bushes, or shrubbery, often for decorative or space-filling purposes
Statistics:
Draft started:	2021-02-21
RFC start:	2021-02-21
Vote start:	2021-03-07
Vote end:	2021-03-22

Proposal

The following tag is proposed:

• natural=shrubbery to define an area of cultivated, maintained, or otherwise human-managed land covered with a group of what is colloquially known as shrubs, bushes, or shrubbery, often used for decorative or space-filling purposes.

Rationale

Shrubs, bushes, and shrubberies planted and maintained by humans are a common feature in many built-up areas. These bits of greenery tend to serve aesthetic as well as pragmatic functions — usually acting as decoration, often acting as natural barriers between different uses of public space, and sometimes being nothing more than a way to fill some gaps in the layout of some grander landscaping scheme.

In OpenStreetMap this type of managed greenery is overwhelmingly tagged with natural=scrub. However, this tag is more intended for wild scrublands and lacks the implication of the area being actively managed by humans. This proposal seeks to introduce natural=shrubbery for the purpose of these managed shrubby areas.

Naming

There are several reasons why this key and value has been chosen:

• Discussion on the proposed tag landuse=shrubs revealed that the landuse tag is not preferred for this. It is not seen as an actual land use compared to, for example, a residential or industrial area. Additionally, this tag describes a natural feature that fits within the definition of the natural key: “The natural key is used to describe wide variety of physical geography, geological and landcover features, including ones that have been modified or created by humans”.
• Another option was to keep tagging these shrubs as natural=scrub adding a sub-tag via scrub=*. The problem here is that scrub is often associated with wild scrublands. Also, it is hard to come-up with proper values for the scrub key.
• natural=scrub was also considered with the tag managed=* possibly with a value like "decorative". Again here, scrub is often associated with wild scrublands.
• leisure=garden with some secondary tags was also considered. However, one might not see these shrubs and bushes as a leisure acitivty. Additionally, other renderers might incorrectly assume that these shrubs and bushes are gardens that people can visit as leisure.
• natural=shrubs was also considered. It is argued that shrubs is more commenly known compared to shrubbery. However, there are a few reasons to oppose for shrubs in favour of shrubbery. The word is very similar to the word "scrub" and "shrub" (both already accepted natural values). This creates the risk for confusion between the values. Secondly, all values in the natural key are singular while shrubs is plurar. This makes shrubs not preferred for consistency reasons. At last, shrubbery puts more emphesis on the decorative and human factor included with the shrubs and bushes intended to map.

Tagging

natural=shrubbery can only be used on closed ways .

For a linear feature that acts as a barrier, consider barrier=hedge instead. For vegetation where the bushes act as ground-cover for a forest or clump of trees, the tags landuse=forest or natural=wood are preferred. If distinct, separate trees are planted in a shrubbery area, the area could be tagged as natural=shrubbery with the trees as either natural=tree or natural=tree_row.

In addition to natural=shrubbery, tags like leaf_cycle=* and leaf_type=*, genus=*, and height=* may be used to further define the feature.

Examples

• 

  natural=shrubbery because the areas are there for decorative and space-filling purposes.

• 

  natural=shrubbery because the areas are there for decorative and space-filling purposes.

• 

  Use natural=shrubbery to tag the shrubby areas in the middle of the field of grass. The trees on the background are tagged with either natural=tree, natural=wood or landuse=forest.

• 

  Use natural=shrubbery to tag the shrubbery used to fill the space. They don't have a distinct barrier function.

Rendering

Any rendering style that wishes to support the tag with a mininal of fuss can opt to employ the same rendering as natural=scrub. natural=shrubbery could eventually be rendered similar in a shade and colour to natural=scrub, but with a pattern that evokes a slightly less ‘wild’ appearance.

Features/Pages affected

If this tag value is approved, a new wiki page for this natural value will be created and the tag will be added to the natural=* overview.

Additionally, on the pages for barrier=hedge, natural=scrub, leisure=garden, landuse=village_green, and natural=shrub, references may be made to the natural=shrubbery as an alternative for areas that fall under the definition of this tag.

Relation to hedges mapped as areas

In earlier drafts of this proposal the use of this tag as as a potential replacement for hedges mapped as areas (i.e., those currently mapped as barrier=hedge with area=yes for which rendering in Carto was dropped) was entertained. To prevent making this proposal larger than necessary, this idea will be presented in a follow-up proposal (e.g., by using natural=shrubbery in combination with a new shrubbery:density=* key).

External discussions

The topic of this proposal was already partly discussed in the proposal for landuse=shrubs.

Comments

Please comment on the discussion page.

Voting

Voting closed

Voting on this proposal has been closed.

It was rejected with 38 votes for, 21 votes against and 2 abstentions.

Most comments were about two things. 1) People found the distinction between the managed natural=shrubbery and unmanaged natural=scrub not clear enough. 2) People preferred the using of subtags for natural=scrub instead of introducing a new tag. Scrub should be used to tag any kind of shrubs/shrubbery/scrub and subtags should be used to further define it.

Instructions for voting

• Log in to the wiki if you are not already logged in.
• Scroll down to voting and click 'Edit source'. Copy and paste the appropriate code from this table on its own line at the bottom of the text area:

To get this output	you type	Description
I approve this proposal.	{{vote|yes}} --~~~~	Feel free to also explain why you support proposal.
I oppose this proposal. reason	{{vote|no}} reason --~~~~	Replace reason with your reason(s) for voting no.
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. comments	{{vote|abstain}} comments --~~~~	If you don't want to vote but have comments. Replace comments with your comments.

Note: The ~~~~ automatically inserts your name and the current date.
For full template documentation see Template:Vote. See also how vote outcome is processed.

• I approve this proposal.--Vakonof (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. Great job capturing community feedback and building a consensus on this tag. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Cartographer10 (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --LeifRasmussen (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Rjw62 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Lectrician1 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal.--Valerietheblonde (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Riiga (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Marczoutendijk (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --JeroenHoek (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Adamfranco (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. The term shrubbery is not translatable in enough languages, causes confusion and is to specific for such a broad application. The description isn't clear and distinctive enough to avoid confusion with the much related scrub, heath and wood. --Bert Araali (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you point out what you find lacking in the wording of the description? For natural=scrub the difference lies in the human managed aspect of the feature, natural=wood implies trees (which this proposal doesn't), and natural=heath is generally well understood in its meaning. For translations into languages that lack a word directly mirroring shrubbery I recommend translating 'managed shrubs'. Are there specific languages that worry you in this respect? --JeroenHoek (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, summarizing what I tried to explain in the talk group: "cultivated, maintained, or otherwise human-managed land" refers to the land, not to the vegetation. This tag is not about the land. It's about the vegetation that grows upon it. The description says nothing about the maintained or manicured aspect of the vegetation, so overlaps largely with scrub. Scrub in many cases is also to some extend maintained (the vegetation is). In most literature and classification systems the height is a major key to distinguish this from heath (small bushes) and wood (trees or woodland). Shrubbery refers to a specific traditional term in gardening. I understood this should cover more then gardening. Actually you confirm the problem already in your explanation it should be translated from "managed shrubs", the definition says nothing about the shrub to be managed, it says the land is managed. The specific gardening term "shrubbery" has no single word translation in other languages, other suitable terms would be shrubs (but that discussion was extensively made on the talk page. --Bert Araali (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

natural=scrub is defacto used for all kind of scrub, the area in the example picture could be seen as hedge. It is not determinable in the typical mapping situation (i.e. without observing the area for years) whether a scrub is "human managed", and in many cases it isn't clear either: how much human intervention is required to merit being seen as "managed"? I do not like the word with this definition. I would be favourable to a tag which is for sculpted shrubs. --Dieterdreist (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I like your idea of being able to mark explicitly sculpted shrubs. For those I think natural=shrubbery can serve as a solid base for that with the addition of a sub-key further refining it. Such a sub-key wouldn't make sense on natural=scrub, but for managed shrubs it would not seem out of place to consider something like shrubbery:sculpted=* in due time (perhaps as a boolean yes/no, where any other value but no (e.g., dragon implies that it is sculpted). --JeroenHoek (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

About the classifications, heath is a distinctive type of vegetation that often only grows at specific locations. It does not need a separate distinction from shrubbery and especially not by height. For wood/trees height is also not a distinctive enough classifier. I think people are perfectly able to distinguish wood, heath, and shrubbery from each other. --Cartographer10 (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The description of shrubbery says that it occurs mostly in built-up areas. Practically every shrubbery area in a city or village is managed and used for space filling or decorative purposes as the rationale describes. These areas are by all means no scrubland. In the rural parts, the by human actively managed shrubbery are also distinguishable. Ofcourse, there are also edge cases like a lot of tags on OSM have but for most of them, with some research and using local knowlegde you should be able to determine whether scrub of shrubbery is more appropiate. --Cartographer10 (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. for the reasons stated by Bert and myself in comment to his vote. --Dieterdreist (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Jsmitsodiliapeel (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Mdeen (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Famlam (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Spuigast (talk) 22:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC) Great addition to our palette. Scrub is too far removed from shrubbery, I want to emphasize the maintained element, and the fact that this is 'struikgewas' / are 'bosschages'/'bosjes'. Common also in parts of the UK.
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I don't think the managed shrubbery vs unmanaged scrub distinction is viable. Many managed "filler" or "decorative" areas look like scrub, and many "unmanaged" scrub areas are in fact nicely manicured in a more "natural" style. It seems to me that the natural=shrubbery proposed here is nothing more or less than the replacement for barrier=hedge + area=yes. It does push the issue of natural being natural even if it is not, if you know what I mean, and having the natural key take the function of mapping landcover. --Peter Elderson (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that sometimes the boundary may not be clear cut, but that grey area should be fairly minimal. Cartographer10 and I decided to keep the barrier=hedge plus area=yes function out of this first iteration to keep the focus on the tag itself for this proposal. Certainly it would be very nice if a follow-up (like the shrubbery:density=* idea floated in the talk page) could solve that problem as well!

I can understand the argument of pushing the natural=* boundary too, but Cartographer10 was right to point out that alternatives researched face much stronger objections, which makes the only alternative to just keep on using natural=scrub. We concluded that the natural=* namespace allows for human-managed natural features, and that this feature would be in scope. --JeroenHoek (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hm... I feel a logic error somewhere... Firstly, The natural key allows for managed landcover, but the proposal requires the 'managed' component. FGrom allowing to requireing, that's a leap. The older idea was that natural by definition is NOT managed. Secondly, if natural can be used for managed, even groomed and manicured areas, then natural=scrub can be used for managed, even groomed and manicured scrub. The term scrub itself is already commonly used that way. Scrubland has a wilder connotation, scrub not so much. The decorative, filler and barrier aspects are very unclear and unverifiable in most cases. I am not opposed to this tag, but the only clear niche I see for it is exactly what the image shows: a hedge area where the barrier function is disputable.

And I would like to see the "managed" requirement go, because I think managed as a requirement conflicts with the natural key.

About density: why not use density as a general dimension key? It's applicable to many features, and I can't see many cases where multiple types of densitiy would apply to one feature, or where the question would arise to what aspect of a feature the density should be applied.

--Peter Elderson (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Mashin (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Aharvey (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Riemer17 (talk) 06:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Maybe I'm missing something, but sorry I don't understand why this managed distinction needs to be introduced on one particular natural=* tag. If "scrub" sounds "wild", is there really no other intervention-neutral term for both? ---- Kovposch (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kovposch: Are you thinking of a neutral term like "bush"? So we could possibly have: natural=bush, bush=scrub, and bush=shrubbery? --Lectrician1 (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

That already sounds good. The "bush" term is already being used here. A whopping 575 instances (more than the 316 natural=shrubbery instances at a glance) too, although most on , so needs to be worked on (AmE vs BrE semantics also discussed in Proposed features/Landuse=shrubs). Unfortunately, one then has to deal with the status quo of natural=scrub on the pragmatic side. Speaking about ideals, there are already quite a few "misnamed" tags that are often grumbled about. I as one sole editor can live with natural=scrub being used for both (possibly with additional tags).

---- Kovposch (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Veto from Africa and Australia: "the bush" is everything mostly still in it's original natural state. You might as well stop mapping and make one area and tag it "the world". But please, this has all been discussed, this is a voting page, move replies or clarifications back to the discussion page or the talk page. This is voting, not discussion, or voter support or lobbying. --Bert Araali (talk) 18:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Please direct your message and "point of order" to the above. I'm replying to a question. "bush" is used 7 times in the proposal content, not to mention the heading template starts with "bushes" together. If you would so kindly inform everyone with a link to a summarry of the full discussion, it would be helpful. ---- Kovposch (talk)

Sure, the proposal authors should provide a summary. Discussion , Tagging Talk, Responding and Voting. --Bert Araali (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. A managed area is not natural, therefore the term contradicts itself. --New observer (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph of natural=* reads: “The natural key is used to describe wide variety of physical geography, geological and landcover features, including ones that have been modified or created by humans” though. We've found the natural=* namespace to be the best fit and least controversial based on the community reach-out Cartographer10 did. What would you suggest instead? --JeroenHoek (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I really don't understand why this turns into a grammar exercise every time. A tag can be any words, it only depends how we define it. But if you must, shrubs are natural not made by man. --Mashin (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. Should be "shrubs" not "shrubbery." The two are not the same thing. A shrubbery has shrubs in it but a group of shrubs is not necessarily a shrubbery. --Brian de Ford (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Brian de Ford: This is meant for an area where it's expected there are always multiple shrubs. I don't get your point. --Lectrician1 (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

@Brian de Ford: Is the name your only objection? We've attempted to find the tag with the broadest support; shrubs was considered, but shrubbery got the best response from the community. We do recognize that it is impossible to choose a name that everyone will like. --JeroenHoek (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. Great addition. Have always been struggling finding the right tag for these areas. --Artemis64 (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --ligfietser (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. After carefully studying both wiki.openstreetmaps.org and wikipedia.org on the topics of scrub, heath and wood while carefully examining the definition of "natural" in openstreetmap it's evident to me the "shrubbery" indicates different kinds of natural objects not properly being addressed by the existing keys --Hike&Map (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. this has been missing so far and the Wikipedia page clearly indicates this to be the correct term. --Hannes Röst (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I second Spuigast's comment. I'm still a bit skeptical about the on-going discussions regarding hedges, but that's a story for another proposal. --501ghost (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I'm sorry to have to vote no, as you've done an excellent job of putting this together, but "shrubbery" is just the wrong word. As has been mentioned several times, if it was just "shrubs", I'd vote for it in a instant! Thanks --Fizzie41 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Fizzie41: We are aware of the dilemma, but face a lot stronger opposition to the word 'shrubs' (and as you can see in the discussions, 'bushes' as well). If we made a proposal for natural=shrubs it would get rejected on the choice of word alone. Is there something we can do in documentation afterwards to address any concerns you may have with regard to the use of the word 'shrubbery'? --JeroenHoek (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. It appears the proposal will pass easily, so I'll go along with majority! I'll still always think it's the wrong word though! :-) --Fizzie41 (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. As pointed before natural=* is not correct key for intensively managed areas. Also it's breaking change, after approving we will end with a lot of areas with wrong tags. It's also not possible to distinct from scrub from aerial imagery. --Kubahaha (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@Kubahaha: The documentation for natural=* explicitly allows for managed areas though. Do you intend to create a proposal to change that? This tag does not break anything except rendering, but it stands a good chance of getting rendered when used often enough. In general though, mappers who adopt a new tag don't re-tag existing objects until rendering is in place, so nothing breaks. That should not matter for voting though, because of tagging for the renderer. --JeroenHoek (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

@JeroenHoek: It was problem with polish translation of natural=* (only modified by human were listed), I fixed it right now. If wiki states that managed land with shrubs should be natural=shrubbery, not natural=scrub I understand that there is wrong tagging, not tagging for the renderer. I don't really get what's wrong with natural=scrub & scrub=*, as there are already many concerns about naming. --Kubahaha (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. There are several "scrubs" in my area that are not really natural and are cultivated. --Weatherman1228 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. This is a useful concept to have a tag for. While I don't think the term shrubbery is exactly right, I also don't have a better suggestion and so I support it. The OSM definition of a tag does not have to exactly match the common English definition of a word. --Ezekielf (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Something B (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. The photos paint it so, that it looks like one of the usual suspects available to the city gardening department and would be much better filed under a subkey that comprises the whole arsenal. --Hungerburg (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --Commodoortje (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Eginhard (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --CordeB (talk) 09:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Shaun das Schaf (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. -> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landuse%3Dshrubs#KISS ... Jo Cassel (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal.Please don't make the same fault like landuse=forest / natural=wood! Better than a new main-tag are sub-tags of natural=scrub--Galbinus (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC) --Galbinus (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Galbinus: @Jo Cassel: We took care to explicitly define the proposed tag in our Quatsch proposal as a human-managed feature. Could you explain why you feel we are making the same mistake as landuse=forest and natural=wood? If you feel a more strict definition of 'human-managed' would help, what would you suggest to address this so that there won't be mappers who think every bushy area in Germany is natural=shrubbery? --JeroenHoek (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. If its cultivated, thus used, it should not be in natural= - Please use subtagging for scrub if there is maintenance on that area. Flohoff (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. If its cultivated, thus used, it should not be in natural= - Please use subtagging for scrub if there is maintenance on that area. --Fx99 (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Flohoff: @Fx99: You both say (in exactly the same words) that managed shrubs should not be in natural=*, but then suggest using a sub-tag of natural=scrub instead (which is in natural=*). That latter statement seems to contradict the earlier one. --JeroenHoek (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. --GoodClover (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. For the same reasons as Flohoff --streckenkundler (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Streckenkundler: According to the definition of natural, shrubbery is allowed under the natural tag. In fact, we are describing a natural feature here so why should it not be allowed under natural. Also, a lot of people think about wild scrublands when they hear scrub(land), not the decorative, maintained type of shrubbery we are describing here. --Cartographer10 (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. The proposal fails to explain why we need to distinguish between maintained and unmaintained shrubs at all. I don't see any practical purpose for which one could use that information and I'm not sure that I would be able to determine if some scrub is unmaintained or cut down only every two years. --Mstriewe (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mstriewe: There are a couple of reasons mentioned on the talk-page intended for a follow-up (e.g., tags that aim to solve the problem of area=yes hedges). These tags don't make sense on wild scrub land. We've decided to limit this initial proposal to the tag itself to keep the discussion focussed. Do tell if you have any suggestions on how to improve this proposal. --JeroenHoek (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

What's the problem if your tags would not fit to wild scrub lands? It's perfectly fine to have a tag that cannot be used on every feature that has some other tag. So "natural=scrub" would still be wild scrub and "natural=scrub + your additional tags" would be a maintained hedge or something alike. Where is the actual problem that requires a new tag in parallel to natural=scrub? My suggestion on how to improve this proposal: Skip it and proceed with the things that actually add information. --Mstriewe (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. --Surveyor54 (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. --geow (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal.--Aeonesa (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Surveyor54: @Geow: and @Aeonesa: Can you please provide feedback on why you voted no? We would like to know where we can improve upon.

If you ask all of the users, who approved this proposal without a comment, to provide a feedback, why they voted yes, I will do it. Aeonesa (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

We don't need a new tag, subtags also do it.--Surveyor54 (talk) 08:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, essentially, the reasons given by Jo Cassel https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/landuse%3Dshrubs#KISS are decisive for my rejection.--geow (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

• I approve this proposal. in my opinion the people who complain about it being unclear what managed means are just cherry picking reasons to vote no it's clear what is meant --Identität (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Between "wild" and "managed" is a smooth transition which would lead to endless dicussions which fits. I see no need for this new tag, you can easily use natural=scrub for bushy land. Vademecum (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. It's not a shrubbery. Although OSM normally uses English words for tags, there are some mismatches - but choosing to introduce new mismatches is a bad idea. --SomeoneElse (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@SomeoneElse: What mismatches do you mean? Shrubbery really emphasizes the decorative, maintained part of the shrubbery we want to tag.

The thing you are trying to come up with a name for here is not a shrubbery. Of the pictures, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Example_2_landuse_bush.jpg is not a shrubbery, nor is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Example_3_landuse_bush.jpg . https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:Green_trees_and_shrubs_in_Shinjuku_Gyoen_National_Garden,_Tokyo,_Japan,_a_sunny_day_with_blue_sky.jpg is a shrubbery. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/File:NAIA-AIRPORT-parking.jpg would be a bit of a stretch - I'd say no to that too. By all means make up a name, but don't pick a name for a "new" feature in OSM that matches something else in English, as it will just confuse everyone. SomeoneElse (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose this proposal. It changes the meaning of 'scrub' used for both applications. Please use a sub-tag 'srub=...' or something like that. The border between managed, otherwise managed and wild is fluent, it would have to be harder. "Otherwise managed" meets in Europe almost for all bushes, whether city or country.JochenB02:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. reason: please no new main tag. Define subtagging to specify how much maintained. Imho energy would be wasted for discussions about propper retagging. Cepesko (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Not a Good idear --Skinfaxi (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@Skinfaxi:, please elaborate why this is not a good idea according to you. Then can we improve the proposal.

• I oppose this proposal. If shrubbery are "Cultivated, maintained, or otherwise managed" it shouldn't be natural=shrubbery but landuse=shrubbery --Reino Baptista (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Re-tagging would be too much work but IMHO the managed=* key in addition to natural=scrub would works just fine for this. --Hauke-stieler (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Cultivated: don't use "natural" key--JB (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --413Michele (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I share some of the concerns raised by 'abstain' and 'no' votes above (already while reading the proposal earlier, not just because others said it). It doesn't seem to me like this should be a 'natural' tag value when it's not a natural feature ('natural' is not 'anything nature-related'!), but then perhaps it's good to avoid creating a similar situation to the managed and natural forest (people often mix that up). My other concern is that I'm not sure how clear this tag value is. If the value had been (to give a bad example) natural=cultivated_taller_than_knee_height_plants then it would have been perfectly clear. Shrubbery sounds, perhaps unless you're a native English speaker, like a small patch of scrub. You have to look it up, you can't intuitively understand when this tag should be used, which will undoubtedly lead to tagging mistakes and annoyances. The question here is whether there is a better alternative available, obviously cultivated_taller_than_knee_height_plants is ridiculous, but perhaps there is a word that better captures the feature than 'shrubbery'. I'm inclined to vote no, but since I'm not 100% certain that either concern can be addressed and I also have trouble tagging these sorts of features currently, I'm abstaining from casting that vote. --Lucgm (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. If natural-related managed features would be incorrect in natural=* then we would need to change most natural=tree, probably basically all natural=tree_row. Subtagging natural=scrub seems a bad idea to me, according to native speakers that I asked "scrub" is for wild areas. --Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. Don't create potentially confusing first-level tags --Pfad-Finder 07:02, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. for the same reason as Hauke-stieler --Thetornado76 (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. I agree with Hauke-stieler, having separate shrubbery and natural=scrub is confusing and just adding managed=* to scrub would be enough. --comfyquiettree (talk)
• I oppose this proposal. This proposal is confused and ends up merging what should be bits of two different tags (barrier=hedge and leisure=garden). Circeus (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. I have voted yes because this tag describes a place that is not mapped yet (partly). (ex. Example 4.) The tag belongs under natural=* as like natural=tree it may be maintained by someone or something but still it is a natural feature. This goes the same for landuse=*. Also arguing about the name of this is stupid. (Just my opinion.) Shrubs? Shrubbery? Same exact thing. natural=scrub also does not fit the description of this. As the definition from Oxford Languages states this is not what these are, "vegetation consisting mainly of brushwood or stunted forest growth." Finally, note that Example 3 is leisure=garden and not shrubbery. --BubbaJuice (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. do not mix several criteria in the same key: cultivated<>planted naturally, decorative<>barrier<>traffic island, ... Marc marc (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
• I oppose this proposal. The difference to natural=scrub is not very clear (to me) and this adds a complicated mixture of "unmanaged vs managed". Rather refine the scrub tag. --Pbnoxious (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• I approve this proposal. --Hke2912 (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Just today when mapping details for a park, I was really unsure how to map exactly what is described here.

• I approve this proposal. --BenniCreador (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)