Talk:Tag:landcover=shrubland
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Shrubland is not a landcover, but a natural or semi-natural plant community
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrubland - shrubland is a plant community or a type of vegetation. Please tag this as natural=scrub. --Jeisenbe (talk) 08:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- you talk nonsense -> Closed Shrubland - Open Shrubland ... "The new product provides for every base land cover class (forest, shrubland,..." ... National Land Cover Database 2016 - Shrubland (NLCD2016) --Henke54 (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- The two links you provide are about the concept of "landcover classes which are based on "analysis of remotely sensed imagery" - that is, an algorithm converting satellite or aerial imagery into certain broad classes. This isn't what we map in OSM: we map real and current features; aerial imagery is a tool but not the standard for our mapping. As it says on the wikipedia article for Shrubland, "shrubland is a plant community". This is the problem with talking too much about landcover: it focuses on what you can see from the air, rather than what you experience when you walk through a place in person. --Jeisenbe (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- If you want to 'classify all that you see when you walk through', and avoid confusion, better make then (for example) a vegetation key with vegetation=* , where '*' are all plants, grass/flowers/trees/bushes/etc... --Henke54 (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- We already have a vegetation tagging system. The key is mainly natural=*, but there's also landuse=orchard for shrubs or trees used for food production, landuse=farmland for cropland, and so on. That's because we match features like "that area of there is an orchard", or "that are over there is a meadow", not more abstract concepts like Vegetation/Landuse/Landcover - which overlap as it turns out. OSM is not a careful, hierarchical structured way to view the world, but rather the tags have developed "organically". It's impossible to get all database users and editors and mappers to switch from natural= to landcover=/landform=/vegetation=/etc, so I'd recommend choosing to appreciate the beauty of the current way that Openstreetmap works. Like the earth, it's full of crazy and ugly things, but there is much beauty and joy to be found in it. --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- If you want to 'classify all that you see when you walk through', and avoid confusion, better make then (for example) a vegetation key with vegetation=* , where '*' are all plants, grass/flowers/trees/bushes/etc... --Henke54 (talk) 11:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- The two links you provide are about the concept of "landcover classes which are based on "analysis of remotely sensed imagery" - that is, an algorithm converting satellite or aerial imagery into certain broad classes. This isn't what we map in OSM: we map real and current features; aerial imagery is a tool but not the standard for our mapping. As it says on the wikipedia article for Shrubland, "shrubland is a plant community". This is the problem with talking too much about landcover: it focuses on what you can see from the air, rather than what you experience when you walk through a place in person. --Jeisenbe (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)