Render natural=shrubbery

[jdhoek]

Render natural=shrubbery. The three shrubbery:density values
(sparse, medium, and dense) are reflected in the pattern.

The pattern is modelled on the pattern used for natural=scrub (same distribution of symbols). Colours used match natural=scrub too, except when the shrubbery:density=dense, then the same colour as barrier=hedge is used to reflect that in both cases the vegetation is generally speaking impassable.

Fixes #4473

Before

(Here barrier=hedge with area=yes is tagged. In the 'after' screenshots natural=shrubbery with shrubbery:density=dense replaces it.)

After

Showing both shrubbery:density=dense and shrubbery:density=medium:

In the following screenshot some of the natural=shrubbery is tagged with shrubbery:density=sparse and no shrubbery:density tag for comparison:

[imagico]

The general thing first: As indicated in #4473 (comment) the situation from last September that has led to the consensus to close that issue has not substantially changed. I don't want to prejudice the possibility that this assessment could change but so far no argument is in sight that is likely to result in that.

Independent of that there are a few other issues with your PR:

• your patterns are PNG only - we usually want patterns to be designed as SVGs so they can be rendered at different resolutions in good quality.
• the pattern design does not allow for an intuitive distinction towards the other features we render with the same base color (natural=scrub and natural=wood). Since most of the features with this tag are small a coarse pattern is not a good idea, the only pattern that you could really consider for this would be a relatively fine structure pattern similar to for example leisure=garden and natural=beach.
• you overload the progression of wood/forest and scrub colors which indicate a difference in height of vegetation in this style with a completely different use to indicate some kind of density of vegetation. That is not a good idea. You will have heath-height shrubbery in the same color as a rainforest with >50m high trees.
• Interpretation of shrubbery:density is highly questionable - it is ostentatiously non-verifiable and there is no indication that its very limited application in the database follows any consistent verifiable principles beyond the domains of the individual mappers who use it (which is just 40 by the way). The only hint at what the different density values mean is the wiki page and that is full of weasel words ('generally', 'might', 'effectively') and is available in English language only - hence no one who does not speak English has a chance to apply these tags in any consistent way.

[kocio-pl]

Different color for dense shrubbery sounds to me like interesting approach. My questions:

1. What do you think about different way of depicting density - pattern of symbols consisting of 1, 2 or 3 elements?
2. How could we render this tag when density is not tagged?

[jdhoek]

imagico we usually want patterns to be designed as SVGs so they can be rendered at different resolutions in good quality.

I was following the literal example of natural=scrub. I'll change the symbols to SVG.

kocio-pl: Different color for dense shrubbery sounds to me like interesting approach.

Thanks. I did it mainly to stay near to barrier=hedge, which dense shrubbery shares the impassable property with. It may also help offer a migration path for mappers who've used or encounter the now broken barrier=hedge with area=yes.

imagico you overload the progression of wood/forest and scrub colors which indicate a difference in height of vegetation in this style with a completely different use to indicate some kind of density of vegetation. That is not a good idea. You will have heath-height shrubbery in the same color as a rainforest with >50m high trees.

Any colours or hues you wish to suggest?

kocio-pl What do you think about different way of depicting density - pattern of symbols consisting of 1, 2 or 3 elements?

It does that — two, three, or four lobes on the symbol getting 'denser' — I'll see if I can create a screenshot more clearly showcasing it.

kocio-pl How could we render this tag when density is not tagged?

Currently I leave out the symbols but keep the same fill colour. That seems to work OK visually and rewards mappers for using shrubbery:density.

[imagico]

Any colours or hues you wish to suggest?

No, the number of vegetation related green colors in this style is already at the limit of what can realistically be intuitively understood. And in its current generic urban greenery use the tag does not in any way fit into the schema we have for vegetation related green colors.

If you'd want to support the generic urban greenery use the most suitable option would be a design somewhat similar to leisure=garden - but that would possibly result in something extremely generic (natural=shrubbery) being rendered similar to something much more precise (leisure=garden) - which is questionable as well. And as said in #4473 (comment) supporting generic urban greenery use of the tag would be fundamentally against the goals of this style. If use of natural=shrubbery showed a trend towards something more specific this design idea could possibly be tuned to support this specifically - but at the moment that is unfortunately a hypothetical discussion because no such trend is really visible.

[jdhoek]

I've changed the image patterns to SVG as requested.

---

@kocio-pl Here is a sample of the three shrubbery:density values (dense, medium, sparse) and one natural=shrubbery without on the top row. I've included natural=wood and natural=scrub on the lower row for comparison, and surrounded the swatches with landuse=grass. I've tweaked the colours a bit as well, but kept the progression towards a slightly darker variant as the density increases.

Samples

The example below includes some patches of shrubbery that were already tagged as natural=scrub. Like many other mappers I am not changing these existing patches to natural=shrubbery without rendering in Carto, because these areas have a significant effect on the map and how it is used (with newly mapped areas there is no degradation of the existing map). This is not strictly necessary, but I consider it a courtesy to my fellow mappers.

I'm quite satisfied with how the rendering turns out here.

Now

With this PR

[imagico]

I have seen the request for review but as indicated i continue to stand behind the decision to close #4473. It was @kocio-pl who re-opened the issue and suggested to work on a PR so i think it would probably be more productive if he provides feedback how he thinks this can be developed in a way that can achieve consensus approval from the maintainers. It seems unlikely from my perspective but as said i don't want to prejudice the possibility.

[jdhoek]

I have seen the request for review but as indicated i continue to stand behind the decision to close #4473.

As a mere contributor I cannot select who the reviewer is, nor can I request specific reviewers via this UI. I have not specifically requested you to reassess your review. A maintainer will probably have to click some buttons to change who the reviewer is.

[imagico]

Sorry, my mistake then. I always thought you can request a review from a specific person.

[jeisenbe]

@kocio-pl do you want to review or comment on this?
Everyone, please remember that anyone can review a PR, not only maintainers.

[jeisenbe]

See my comments in #4473 (comment) - I think it is probably still too soon to render this new tag, until it clearly overtakes natural=scrub for mapping bushes in urban gardens.

[pnorman]

Closing - see #4473 (comment) and reasons above.

[jdhoek]

@pnorman What is the relevance of that code snippet for this PR?

If it's 'too soon' to render this tag, then why close the PR? Is something wrong with the PR itself?

[pnorman]

Code snippet was a mispaste, corrected it above.

The reason for closing this PR is we're declining rendering this tag.

[jdhoek]

@pnorman Could you give an indication of the number of uses needed to consider rendering?

[BubbaJuice]

@jeisenbe How can we measure its use in urban gardens in comparison to natural=scrub?

[OttoROSM]

Can this please be rendered. The map now looks broken/imcomplete and is not reflecting the map data for people to recognise their surroundings.

By minimum at least render it the same as 'scrub'; as it is a form of greenery.

To be honest, I found it a bit silly that a very specific tag as 'flowerbed' is being rendered; but has far less pratical implecation than shrubbery. That tag is far older (2015), but only started to become popular by 2020. It took until 2022 before it had 25k tags and today has 45k tags.

In contrast, Shrubbery was implemented in 2021 and today has 24k tags in use.

I do believe that these both are 'micromapping' tags and people start using them when the more rudimentary mapping is already done. But then again; so might lampposts, bollards, or manholes. Or a swing in a playground.

[ZLima12]

I don't see a reason to not at least render this the same way as natural=scrub. Taginfo says the tag has 46k uses now, which is nearly double what it was less than a year ago (see @OttoROSM's comment). It has a well documented wiki page, and the graph is showing sustained growth of the tag: