Talk:Proposed features/orchard

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Areas, and nodes

I notice that the tag is only proposed for areas. It seems common practice for other area specific tags to also include nodes as an option. Making the tag also applicable to nodes (and encouraging renderers to support it) would allow the tag to be used in cases where the extent is unknown. Importing GeoNET Names Server (GNS) data is one example of when node-tagging would be valuable, since GNS data only consists of points. Aside from this, I like the proposal. --DanHomerick 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see why it couldn't be used as a node. --Pieren 19:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Nodes added. FrViPofm 22:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


Ok with me: in Turkey for example where ever is water you find such orchards which may be quite inhomogeneous areas without fences indicating parcel boundaries and growing grapes, apricots, apples, walnuts, pistachio as well as salads and vegetable near one another. These I would not call landuse=farm or landuse=allotments so landuse=orchard is useful. --katpatuka 05:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the syntax landuse=orchard + trees:apple_trees=yes + trees:apricot_trees=yes + trees:olive_trees=yes should be applied. Thus, the renderers could render at least the orchard, but a search engine could find apple trees, olive trees...FrViPofm 09:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Trees or fruits

As not all fruits grow on trees, I would prefer fruits=apples instead of trees=apples. Then we can use fruit=vine for vineyard. --Lulu-Ann 08:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean fruit=grapes rather then vine. You're perhaps thinking of vines=grapes for a reason why trees isn't a suitable word. Although technically, a vineyard isn't an orchard and I think there is already an existing tag for it. --EdLoach 08:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
landuse=vineyard, even if I propose an other patern for the rendering, in the way of those for orchard (the actual patern for mapnik is too close to the forest patern), vineyard has already its own tag in the landuse namespace.
Because the aim is to map what is on the ground, because all trees are cultivated not only for fruits (branches, sap or resin, truffle...), as fruits are on trees only for a short period whereas trees remains (even without leaves), trees sounds better. The produce=latex/apple/truffle/coconut/cork tag can also be added, with other effets on rendering, or the vine=meursault/cabernet/muscat on a landuse=vineyard. It could be interserting to have such information on doing a map of "truffle production area". I add the tag as an option on the proposal.FrViPofm 08:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
"Vineyard" already exists and "orchard" is a word dedicated for fruit-trees. If you have no trees, I would say it is not orchard. -- Pieren 08:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
what are the fields/plantations/orchards for strawberries, cranberries, raspberries, blackberries, bilberries, gooseberries called in English? Aren't they orchards? According to wikipedia:en they are (as they include shrubs in the definition): -- Dieterdreist 10:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I like the "farm" idea below. Then we get rid of the discussion about English words for fields where different things grow on. --Lulu-Ann 12:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to keep farm for non permanent farmlands and use orchard for ... ergh "orchard" and berry plantations which are more permanent features . --Pieren 13:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the general idea but would limit the use of 'orchard' to cases where the plant is 'woody' and more than a shrub (i.e. a tree) and where the main purpose of growing the plant is for the production of its fruit for use - directly or indirectly - as food or drink. Bear in mind that nuts are a kind of 'fruit'. My definition would deliberately exclude: willow plantations for wicker (the commercial product is not the fruit of the willow but its branches - and the use of the product is not food/drink related). I would also exclude the production of 'soft fruit' (e.g. strawberries, cranberries, blueberries - and probably also raspeberries, gooseberries, blackcurrants, etc. - even though the plants are in some cases woody shrubs or sub-shrubs they are not trees and fields planted with these 'soft fruit' crops are normally referred to as a fruit-farm) - thus I am really restricting 'orchard' in my mind to the production of 'hard fruit' - with vineyards a bit of a borderline case - and of such enormous importance to the sum total of human happiness to require a special tag 'vineyard' of their own (:>) On balance I am inclined to express a 'yes' opinion, which I will do on the main page. Mikh43 12:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. But it seems that 'orchard' by extension is also used for non-trees plantations as it is said on Wikipedia : "A fruit garden is generally synonymous with an orchard, although it is set on a smaller non-commercial scale and may emphasize berry shrubs in preference to fruit trees.". This is probably a question of local practices and we should not restrict the use of orchard if it is called like that locally. And more important is the combination with a second key providing more details about the fruits coming from there. -- Pieren 13:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Meadow orchard (de:Streuobstwiese)

I'd like to see a differentiation of Orchards and Meadow orchards (less intense, traditional form of cultivating fruit). A definition could be this: -- Dieterdreist 10:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There was an idea to have the cultivation method in a tag here: Talk:Tag:landuse=farm. How about cultivation_method=extensive? I guess that would fit. --Lulu-Ann 12:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
+1 FrViPofm 13:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


So, given this is a type of farm, why don't you just use landuse=farm as the base tag and then add extra tags to tell what they're growing? These orchards are all tagged as farms over here. --Eimai 11:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this sounds like a much better idea. -- Gustavf 11:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
+1 from me. --Lulu-Ann 12:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No. Orchard is not always owned by farmers or for intensive production and resale. Many (small) orchards in my country belong to families who are not farmers. Or do you include garden in your landuse=farm ? As I said above, I would keep farm for non permanent produce and take a specific landuse for other permanent features --Pieren 13:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Then it can be landuse=allotments with fruit=apples instead of farm. --Lulu-Ann 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
An allotment is not a private garden. It has nothing to do. It represents something else. --Melaskia 14:02, 29 September 2009
Well, get rid of landuse=farm then anyway because it's completely useless then, as it's obviously used for the wrong things so far if one takes your definition. As it stands now it's being used for everything where people are either growing things or keeping animals, which isn't part of someones private garden (which includes allotments), and isn't a forest. So that's one tag easily covering half the country over here. If you're now going to specialize all that, then please go back to the drawing board instead of patching things with just one new tag like orchard and basically saying that half of the country is now mistagged as farm.
Not very easy of course given the "landuse" tag is already in use now and it would be the obvious tag for it, but be creative :-). May I suggest you look into the legend of our NGI/IGN maps of 1:10000 over here, which are a great source to get an idea for what's needed. [1] and click "Bodemgebruik", it has Dutch, French, German and English definitions. Looks like they have a nice new possible tag name as well: "soil covering". --Eimai 15:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting link ! I thing it is what we are doing with the WikiProject Corine Land Cover/Tagging scheme. You can start translating this page for the next CLC import in Belgium ;-) Lot of item are near! FrViPofm 16:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. An orchard is not necessarily a farm. They are two different things. The only common point would be that people are growing "stuff" on it. There was an abandoned orchard a few years ago a few hundred meter from my home where people used to get their fruits. It was owned by the town and tendered by people who wanted it. In addition, a farm is looking very different from an orchard. It is an integral part of how the land looks. It would confuse things. If you follow that logic, then you will want to remove the vineyard from OSM too since they are farm land. --Melaskia 13:59, 29 September 2009
I have tested the tag on a part of land in my neighbourhood. A little orchard with apple trees. But the owner is not a farmer, he is retired, but was a famour pastry-cook. His orchard gave him apple for apple pies known by every body in Besançon. Now with an other retired man he press the apple and produce a juce for the children. It is not a farm, but it is an orchard.
Ok, we can tag all the ground used by farmer as landuse=farm. But waht with landuse=meadow? what with landuse=vineyard ? As I can see in the landuse=farm page, the aim of the tag was to fill large part of landscape, at the scale of a village, even more... The talk page suggested that it seemed impossible to tag with accuracy wide spaces... Today with the Corine Land Cover projet we are able to map a whole country with details up to 25 ha, with great knowledge of the ground and vegetation.
Yes, we still can map everything with farm. But I have worked with other good maps (IGN 1/25000°) with more acuracy than farm. I have worked in agruculture (owning 400 sheeps) an I know that a field, a meadow, a vineyard, an orchard are things different, worked differently, looking differently in the landscape. A pity the use of landuse=farm. landuse=farmland is less confusing. I would rather use landuse=field for worked ground (annually), landuse=meadow for pluri-annual or natural meadow, surface of grass (but not the landuse=pasture ! The whole Sahara is pastured extensively !). But not farm! In a short time, we will get 3 tags on OSM : natural=wood, landuse=farm, landuse=redidential. Those who have propoted such a tag have never worked outside ! FrViPofm 14:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
If using landuse=farm + farming=orchard (or something similar), you will not loose detail and you will still have data that are easily used by those not interested in the details. The vineyard tagging was probably a mistake, that is no reason to do the same mistake twice. I also fail to see that something stops being a farm if the owner retires or dies. -- Gustavf 06:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
What is not interested in the details ? Is it having 2 basic tags nature=forest/water landuse=farm/residential ? No I think (and I'm not alone: see the talk page) that landuse=farm was a mistake. What about a meadow ? Is it farm ? Is it nature ? The aim of creating this value was to find someting saying 'we are not in the wild, but we are not in the city'. But someting poor for those tagging from motorway (see the discussion page).
For those not interested, the existence of the landuse or nature would be enough. Let other enrich the semantic of OSM, for those interested. Have a look to the map beeing build by the actual mass import of Corine. You will see the interest.
I like the idea of tree tagging 'mm=nn + nn=oo' and also the syntax 'mm:nn=oo' namespace like, and I would promote it to make the tagging more semantic. But it is not aplyable every where. An orchard is not always owned by an alive farmer, and should we not map it in this case ? OSM is not a way to record if the owner is an alive farmer. OSM is not a demographic map ;-) FrViPofm 08:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
So landuse=farm was a mistake. I can agree with that, but you do not correct that mistake by making antother mistake.
Say, i want to make a Norwegian map with focus on what is usual and important in Norway. I would end up with 5-10 different renderings for skiing related ways, and probably one or two for farming related landuses and no special rule for orchards or vineyards. If I choose to render the whole world, a rule for landuse=farm + farming=orchard would be rendered and the map users would get a general idea of what that land is. Your beloved landuse=orchard, on the other hand, would show up a blank, unmapped space. Why do you want to force as many renderers as possible to have as many special rules as possible? What information is lost with landuse=farm + farming=orchard (or landuse=forest + farming=orchard, if that would be more suitable)? -- Gustavf 10:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
We don't create tags for the renderers but to identify what we see on the ground. When I see an orchard, I cannot say if it belongs to a farmer or not. But I can say "it's an orchard !". We started to specialize this type of landuse with vineyard and I think it is not a mistake since such plantations are permanent and useful information. If we follow this principle of putting everything into subcategories, why are we continuing to use landuse=residential/commercial/industrial/retail/etc.. as It could be easily replaced by landuse=buildings+buildings=residential/commercial/industrial/retail/etc. I'm just wondering why we have a concept of key:value for the tags if we always have to create a key:category + category:value. My guess is that people against this value are just thinking about the renderers, not for the best and easy way to represent the world. --Pieren 11:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Like I said above, the landuse tag has become a mess anyway. Sometimes it says what there is on the ground, sometimes it says what it is used for, and often it's not clear which of the two applies. Resulting in discussions like this. It can only be solved by rethinking the whole concept or discussions like this will appear over and over again. --Eimai 12:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
+1, and not only landuse ! I'm open to a discussion on tag semantic... But it is out of the scope of this proposal. FrViPofm 12:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, Gustavf, I understand your preoccupation. How to render simply the complexity of the world? But, they are few things I have leart since I map on OSM. One is Relations are not categories, an other is We don't map for the rendering (and Pieren, above, told me that several times ;-).
I agree that the way of tagging on OSM is far from simple, far from being semanticaly consitent, and I would have predered namespace-like tagging. But its the way that OSM has grown. On the french list we have had a discussion on the landuse=military with landuse=forest, how to resolve the multi-use. That is: how to map the complexity ? And the complexity is orchards (and also vineyard and vegetable garden) are not always farmlands. I gave an example for the orchard, I can give also examples of vineyard that are not of farms, in big cities. Will we have other blanks because, for simplicity, we can't map orchards that are not of farms? Yes, the tagging must be consistent and a consistent tagging would prepare the work for renderers (it is the aim of the Proposed features, tagwatch shows that exists inconsitent tagging !). No, the tagging must not be subjected to the rendering. In your case, you can set the renderer to render orchards and vineyard as farmland. It would be lazyness and lack of accuracy to map orchards and vineyards and vegetable gardens as farmland. And taking your example, I would have to create a new value for the landuse for orchards, vineyards, vegetable gardens that are not in a residential, that are not of a farm, because landuse=forest is not suitable, because farming=orchard is a non-sense in those cases, (it's not farming), because farming is not in the namespace of residential ? You would encounter the same problem: too much first level tags or you would create more inconsitent tagging with landuse=everything, farming=whatever, (the french expression République bananière should be tagged landuse=military + farming=banana + admin_level=2 ;-). Yes, being simple is difficult and OSM has to strength its semantic, but the work of the rendering is not the work of the mapping and tagging. FrViPofm 12:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Understanding what tagging for the renderer means is a very good start. It does not mean "pelase make data difficult to use for the renderer". -- Gustavf 13:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
We understand what means "not tagging for the renderer" but here you try to categorize/simplify tags in landuse=farm when it is not required with the idea behind that it will make the rendering job easier because it will be rendered immediately and without any modification. I would add a new statement "don't create tag subcategories to make your new value rendered immediately when it is not a subcategory". -- Pieren 14:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The question then is if an orchard also is farmland. I think most Norwegian farmers (coming from a farm myself) would say that apples is a crop, even if the plants live somewhat longer than other multi year crops common in Norway (strawberries, for example). I can certainly see that this is can be different in other countries/languages/cultures. -- Gustavf 15:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Tree nursery

I don't understand what a tree nursery is doing under orchard. In all the other mentioned examples, when the harvest takes place the trees stay. When you "harvest" trees from a tree nursery the trees themselves are removed. Not to mention that I don't think in normal language usage, a tree nursery would be called an orchard. Also in the topographic maps produced by (for???) the Dutch government tree nurseries and orchards have a different symbol. --Cartinus 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I've put the tree nurcery because it was a question on the plantage talk page... I've not made my mind about it. In a way tree nurcery has to see with trees for orchards (or gardens). In an other way, you are right, the whole plant is gathered. But usualy the small trees are in place for 2-3 years and the piece of land is a tree nurcery for several years. I thought also that it would never be a tag for this too specific landuse, so it could be a special value of orchard. Have you suggestions of other tagging, example of rendering in the topo maps? The landuse=orchard + trees=nurcery can have its specific rendering... FrViPofm 13:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
A tree nursery is not an orchard, so it can't be a subtag. It needs its own landuse tag then. An orchard is for harvesting the fruit, a tree nursery is for "harvesting" the whole tree. I doubt those two are ever combined... --Eimai 13:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Eimai, a tree nursery is not an orchard and is not necessary about fruit trees. It should be removed from the proposal to avoid confusion. --Pieren 13:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree too. Additionnally, about nurseries, I believe we should rather talk about "plants nurseries", as they often (I believe) grow not only trees, but other kinds of vegetals. --Leblatt 20:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
If nobody want nurcery as subtag of orchard, I will remove it ( I will say it is rejected ). Let us way tomorrow...
But the concept of orchard, in OSM, will necessary be wider than in the Devonshire... We must take in account tree production that is not fruit, even if it is not in the original concept ! The aerial view [2] shows oak plantations for truffles. Some would object that oaks are not orchard : we don't gather the fruit, the acorn. But [3] showing peach trees, and a walk through such plantations convinces that, in term of landuse (planted trees in lines, worked ground, network of tracks), they are very similar. I have no reference of oaks plantation for cork in Portugal. If somebody find an areal view... FrViPofm 22:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, we could consider tree plantations for cork and truffle as part of this landuse. But it shouldn't be listed in the main definition because "culture of any kind of trees" is too vague. But we could mention these as special cases to be considered in the middle of the proposal. -- Pieren 14:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reword the definition of orchard

As said above, orchard is not a tree nursery. I think we should reword the whole definition of the tag, e.g. remove the terms "culture of trees" which is ambigus. We should be much closer to the wikipedia definition of orchard which is the common understanding of this word :

"An orchard is an intentional planting of trees or shrubs maintained for food production. Orchards comprise fruit or nut-producing trees grown for commercial production. This tag can also apply to a fruit garden, generally synonymous with an orchard, although it is set on a smaller non-commercial scale and may emphasize berry shrubs in preference to fruit trees." (based on [4])

--Pieren 11:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

+1 --Cartinus 12:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
done. Will be submited to vote on Friday. FrViPofm 14:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Post vote modification not acceptable

The proposal has been modified after people started voting (And at least after I voted)

  • landuse=orchard + trees=apple_trees

was changed to :

  • landuse=orchard + tree=apple OR trees=apple_trees

Where was it discussed that there should be an OR ? have all voters been warned ? or is this just an error I can revert ? sletuffe 12:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)