Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[John Willis]

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> So what are you going to use/propose ? landcover or man_made ?
> Curious, because I want to correct my mapping.

I Have been thinking about it a lot, and I think we need two separate tags - 
one for the object and one for the “surface” (landcover). 

So I think there is a need for both man_made=flowerbed and landcover=flowers — 
maybe this is overkill, but I want to follow the theme followed by other tags. 

But there is a discrepancy...

Other types of plant-based tags have the ability to map an individual item 
(tree, shrub), as well as a linear line (tree row, barrier=hedge), and an area 
(scrub, wood/forest). 

Flowers are difficult because in some usages they are shrubs - like the 
distinct, named, cataloged, and mappable-from-imagery rose bushes in a rose 
garden; in other usages they are tiny plants in massive quantities that should 
only be mapped by area. 

So, I think it would be good to use the existing natural=shrub with 
man_made=flowerbed when mapping large gardens of carefully managed flowers, and 
to have a general landcover=flowers to use for all other circumstances. but I 
am not sure how to use flower_bed by itself when it contains unnamable “tiny” 
flowers or a field of nameless, unmappable flowers, like nemophila or a named 
breed of a single flower (like tulips). would you combine man_made=flowerbed & 
landcover=flowers in such a situation? similar to a road, park, pitch, or track 
- we map the item *and* what it’s “surface” is separately — is such a 
distinction necessary here? 

Javbw


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Apr 2018, at 11:28, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> So what are you going to use/propose ? landcover or man_made ?


if I had to choose a value for landcover I would use “flowers”, similar to 
“trees” or “grass”

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Marc Gemis]

So what are you going to use/propose ? landcover or man_made ?
Curious, because I want to correct my mapping.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 11:01 AM, John Willis  wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 12, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
>> wrote:
>>
>> landuses don’t refer to features like a house or a supermarket, they refer 
>> to a purpose/activity class like retail, residential, industrial or 
>> commercial.
>
> Yea, you got me on that one. You are right about the landuse tag being wrong 
> for flowerbed. I somehow got mixed up on this one.
>
> I understand the reasoning against usng landuse now.
>
> I think we should have some more landuse categories, but I got mixed up 
> somehow, equating usage with category.
>
> Thanks for the continued discussion and comments from everyone.
>
> Javbw.
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[John Willis]

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> landuses don’t refer to features like a house or a supermarket, they refer to 
> a purpose/activity class like retail, residential, industrial or commercial.

Yea, you got me on that one. You are right about the landuse tag being wrong 
for flowerbed. I somehow got mixed up on this one. 

I understand the reasoning against usng landuse now. 

I think we should have some more landuse categories, but I got mixed up 
somehow, equating usage with category. 

Thanks for the continued discussion and comments from everyone. 

Javbw. 




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[John Willis]

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 4:48 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> I thought you also agreed they could be seen as a kind of garden? It isn’t 
> the only possibility, one might also see them as a kind of park, or maybe 
> even a kind of meadow, but my choice, from what I imagine, would be kind of 
> garden.

I assume a basic flower park is a garden, and a big "spectacle" like a huge 
field of flowers (non-farm, grown and marketed for tourism) is a garden as 
well, but should be defined with a new garden:type=* tag of some kind. 

Javbw. 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Apr 2018, at 02:54, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> A flower park is not a farm either. The purpose of the land is still to grow 
> ornamental flowers for enjoying their beauty there.


I thought you also agreed they could be seen as a kind of garden? It isn’t the 
only possibility, one might also see them as a kind of park, or maybe even a 
kind of meadow, but my choice, from what I imagine, would be kind of garden.

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Apr 2018, at 02:54, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> If it is landcover or man_made or a new key like landscaping= or whatever, I 
> don't care - but landuse=flower_bed is in defacto use and seems acceptable.


not every use does imply a landuse object of the same specific class, we don’t 
map landuse=supermarket but supermarkets are a use. We don’t map 
landuse=terraced_housing but aren’t terraced houses a use of land? We also 
don’t use landuse=wastewater_treatment. Landuses are more generic, they 
describe rough usage classes.  landuses don’t refer to features like a house or 
a supermarket, they refer to a purpose/activity class like retail, residential, 
industrial or commercial. For specific features we use tags like amenity, 
man_made, natural, tourism etc.
Flowerbed would be odd in the list of other landuses, because it is very 
specific. And it can/will typically occur within the established landuse 
classes.


Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 12. Apr 2018, at 02:54, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> You can't nest landuses? We nest every other type of area.


we don’t nest every type of area, for example we don’t nest buildings,  nor do 
we nest admin boundaries of the same admin level.

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Warin]

On 12/04/18 15:35, Marc Gemis wrote:

If it is not landuse=flower_bed,what is the landuse tag then ? The
land is used for something, not ? So even when you tag it as landcover
(or man_made) = flower_bed, I would still expect to be able to add a
landuse tag as well.


Yes... for things like a lilly pond, topiary etc
If not already used for something else - like highway, residential etc.

?landuse=decorative? passive_recreation?

I think the tag should not be a specific physical object but what it is used 
for - the human attribute.
Does that make sense?


On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/04/18 19:30, John Willis wrote:

Actual flower Farms are landuse=farmland crop=flowers. Yea, they may have
a viewpoint and a gift shop. But those large commercial farms are not what
I'm talking about.

These are about tagging the actual beds of decorative flowers with
landuse=flowerbed (which I think is totally a landuse - it is land dedicated
to flowers for display or decoration),


-1 ... it is not a 'landuse'.
The same can be done by other things than flower beds ... lilies on a pond,
topiary for example.
It is not defined by 'flowerbed!

It is a land cover ...


and tagging gardens that are "flower spectacles" - places that grow
flowers primarily as a spectacle (and often charge admission) using a
garden:type=foobar is the two tags I am asking for feedback on.
Landuse=grass is crappy - is it for sports? picnicing? Roadside shoulder?
Landscaping?


A flower bed can be for obtaining cut flowers in a residential garden. The
land use is still residential, not flowerbed.

A flowerbed can be in the middle of a roundabout, the landuse is still
highway.

The land cover in both the above is a flowerbed.



Luckily flowers in a non-farm sense serve a single purpose - to be looked
at. They are colorful decorations. You don't sleep on them. You don't play
sports on them. People grow flowers in dedicated land merely to be enjoyed.


Or to cut up and placed inside for decoration and smell.




Several places around the world grow tulips and build a Dutch windmill to
emulate a working landuse=farmland - but just as Space Mountain is neither a
spaceship nor an actual mountain, these are tourist attractions made to
emulate the look of a farm for people looking to take pictures. These fall
into the category of "flower attractions" and I want to tag these as such.


Tourist attractions. Land cover = flowerbed.


When I lived in San diego, the only thing I had ever seen like this is the
Carlsbad flower fields. There are formal botanical gardens and rose gardens
- but a town or large commercial park just doesn't purposefully grow very
large fields of flowers in a large field and put out a viewing platform like
they do in Japan *and* get hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of
people a week that come to just merely view the spectacle  that they
purposefully made, year after year in the same spot and static
configuration.

Maybe it is common in the rest of the world, but these flower spectacles
(and their dedicated area just for flowers) seems something that needs
precise tagging.

Javbw


On Apr 10, 2018, at 2:19 PM, Clifford Snow 
wrote:

In John Wills original post he talked about tulip farms. T

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Marc Gemis]

If it is not landuse=flower_bed,what is the landuse tag then ? The
land is used for something, not ? So even when you tag it as landcover
(or man_made) = flower_bed, I would still expect to be able to add a
landuse tag as well.

m.

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/04/18 19:30, John Willis wrote:
>>
>> Actual flower Farms are landuse=farmland crop=flowers. Yea, they may have
>> a viewpoint and a gift shop. But those large commercial farms are not what
>> I'm talking about.
>>
>> These are about tagging the actual beds of decorative flowers with
>> landuse=flowerbed (which I think is totally a landuse - it is land dedicated
>> to flowers for display or decoration),
>
>
> -1 ... it is not a 'landuse'.
> The same can be done by other things than flower beds ... lilies on a pond,
> topiary for example.
> It is not defined by 'flowerbed!
>
> It is a land cover ...
>
>> and tagging gardens that are "flower spectacles" - places that grow
>> flowers primarily as a spectacle (and often charge admission) using a
>> garden:type=foobar is the two tags I am asking for feedback on.
>> Landuse=grass is crappy - is it for sports? picnicing? Roadside shoulder?
>> Landscaping?
>
>
> A flower bed can be for obtaining cut flowers in a residential garden. The
> land use is still residential, not flowerbed.
>
> A flowerbed can be in the middle of a roundabout, the landuse is still
> highway.
>
> The land cover in both the above is a flowerbed.
>
>
>>
>> Luckily flowers in a non-farm sense serve a single purpose - to be looked
>> at. They are colorful decorations. You don't sleep on them. You don't play
>> sports on them. People grow flowers in dedicated land merely to be enjoyed.
>
>
> Or to cut up and placed inside for decoration and smell.
>
>>
>> 
>>
>> Several places around the world grow tulips and build a Dutch windmill to
>> emulate a working landuse=farmland - but just as Space Mountain is neither a
>> spaceship nor an actual mountain, these are tourist attractions made to
>> emulate the look of a farm for people looking to take pictures. These fall
>> into the category of "flower attractions" and I want to tag these as such.
>
>
> Tourist attractions. Land cover = flowerbed.
>
>>
>> When I lived in San diego, the only thing I had ever seen like this is the
>> Carlsbad flower fields. There are formal botanical gardens and rose gardens
>> - but a town or large commercial park just doesn't purposefully grow very
>> large fields of flowers in a large field and put out a viewing platform like
>> they do in Japan *and* get hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of
>> people a week that come to just merely view the spectacle  that they
>> purposefully made, year after year in the same spot and static
>> configuration.
>>
>> Maybe it is common in the rest of the world, but these flower spectacles
>> (and their dedicated area just for flowers) seems something that needs
>> precise tagging.
>>
>> Javbw
>>
>>> On Apr 10, 2018, at 2:19 PM, Clifford Snow 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> In John Wills original post he talked about tulip farms. T
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[John Willis]

Javbw

On Apr 12, 2018, at 7:04 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> You don't play sports on them. People grow flowers in dedicated land merely 
>> to be enjoyed.
> 
> Or to cut up and placed inside for decoration and smell.

You can't nest landuses? We nest every other type of area. 

I am not mapping individual blooms, nor does someone snipping a blossom and 
bringing it in their house affect the mapping of flowerbeds. I am mapping the 
use of this spot of land. To me, that is a landuse. If it is landcover or 
man_made or a new key like landscaping= or whatever, I don't care - but 
landuse=flower_bed is in defacto use and seems acceptable. 

No one digs up the entire area of land and destroys it if they are just 
snipping a blossom. The flowers are a decoration in the flowerbed. It is not a 
flower farm. I have an orange tree in my yard - I do not run an orchard. A 
flower park is not a farm either. The purpose of the land is still to grow 
ornamental flowers for enjoying their beauty there.  If they kill all the 
flowers and plant grass or build a shed, it is no longer a flowerbed. 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. Apr 2018, at 23:23, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> I need another tag that says "this area here visible in imagery is decorative 
> flowers". This exact 5m2 Or 100m2. If that is landuse=flower_bed or 
> man_made=flowerbed or whatever,


I would choose man_made for this, not landuse. 

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Warin]

On 11/04/18 19:30, John Willis wrote:

Actual flower Farms are landuse=farmland crop=flowers. Yea, they may have a 
viewpoint and a gift shop. But those large commercial farms are not what I'm 
talking about.

These are about tagging the actual beds of decorative flowers with 
landuse=flowerbed (which I think is totally a landuse - it is land dedicated to 
flowers for display or decoration),


-1 ... it is not a 'landuse'.
The same can be done by other things than flower beds ... lilies on a pond, 
topiary for example.
It is not defined by 'flowerbed!

It is a land cover ...


and tagging gardens that are "flower spectacles" - places that grow flowers 
primarily as a spectacle (and often charge admission) using a garden:type=foobar is the 
two tags I am asking for feedback on. Landuse=grass is crappy - is it for sports? 
picnicing? Roadside shoulder? Landscaping?


A flower bed can be for obtaining cut flowers in a residential garden. The land 
use is still residential, not flowerbed.

A flowerbed can be in the middle of a roundabout, the landuse is still highway.

The land cover in both the above is a flowerbed.




Luckily flowers in a non-farm sense serve a single purpose - to be looked at. 
They are colorful decorations. You don't sleep on them. You don't play sports 
on them. People grow flowers in dedicated land merely to be enjoyed.


Or to cut up and placed inside for decoration and smell.





Several places around the world grow tulips and build a Dutch windmill to emulate a 
working landuse=farmland - but just as Space Mountain is neither a spaceship nor an 
actual mountain, these are tourist attractions made to emulate the look of a farm for 
people looking to take pictures. These fall into the category of "flower 
attractions" and I want to tag these as such.


Tourist attractions. Land cover = flowerbed.



When I lived in San diego, the only thing I had ever seen like this is the 
Carlsbad flower fields. There are formal botanical gardens and rose gardens - 
but a town or large commercial park just doesn't purposefully grow very large 
fields of flowers in a large field and put out a viewing platform like they do 
in Japan *and* get hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of people a week 
that come to just merely view the spectacle  that they purposefully made, year 
after year in the same spot and static configuration.

Maybe it is common in the rest of the world, but these flower spectacles (and 
their dedicated area just for flowers) seems something that needs precise 
tagging.

Javbw


On Apr 10, 2018, at 2:19 PM, Clifford Snow  wrote:

In John Wills original post he talked about tulip farms. T

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[John Willis]

Javbw

> On Apr 11, 2018, at 7:37 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> An area with decorative flowers organized and presented in flowerbeds, with 
> visitors and maybe a fee, will be something, like a flower show, with a name, 
> maybe a website etc.

That is the overall Garden.  Garden:type=flower_field. Or flower_Spectacle. 
Whatever people suggest.  Tag the fees, name, website, etc on the enclosing 
garden tag (along with tourism=attraction). 

I micromap tourist destinations. I tag the walking paths and walls. Hedges and 
driveways. Individual trees. Fences, gates, parking lot refs and individual 
vending machines. Many of the places I personally visit are flower parks. I 
have visited  9 flower parks in the last few years. I map places I visit 
and revisit. Most are large outdoor gardens that fit into existing garden tags. 
A few of them are either a stand-alone flower fields or a garden/park/ with a 
named feature that is a dedicated large flower field (like that hill of blue 
nemophila). But all of them have beds of flowers with areas easily mappable 
from imagery. 


I need another tag that says "this area here visible in imagery is decorative 
flowers". This exact 5m2 Or 100m2. If that is landuse=flower_bed or 
man_made=flowerbed or whatever, it's okay with me, I would like to "approve" it 
so we can get it documented, along with the garden:type=value. 

Javbw
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-04-11 11:30 GMT+02:00 John Willis :

> Actual flower Farms are landuse=farmland crop=flowers. Yea, they may have
> a viewpoint and a gift shop. But those large commercial farms are not what
> I'm talking about.
>
> These are about tagging the actual beds of decorative flowers with
> landuse=flowerbed (which I think is totally a landuse - it is land
> dedicated to flowers for display or decoration)



I understand the land is dedicated to displaying flowers, but landuses are
usually broader categories.
And I wouldn't look at these in a feature agnostic way. An area with
decorative flowers organized and presented in flowerbeds, with visitors and
maybe a fee, will be something, like a flower show, with a name, maybe a
website etc. that distinguishes them from the private flowerbeds in a
residential area. IMHO you should aim at representing this feature. It
doesn't mean you can't map the single flowerbed inside, but first I'd look
for a way to represent the whole thing.




> , and tagging gardens that are "flower spectacles" - places that grow
> flowers primarily as a spectacle (and often charge admission) using a
> garden:type=foobar is the two tags I am asking for feedback on.
> Landuse=grass is crappy - is it for sports? picnicing? Roadside shoulder?
> Landscaping?
>


leisure=garden
with subtags if you like

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[John Willis]

> On Apr 10, 2018, at 11:09 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> they are. A flowerbed is about something human made. What you have been 
> posting is a forest

+1 

There are many natural spectacles (the fall colors on the mountains, certian 
flowers that grow on wild hills, etc) that is a form of attraction, but is 
neither a subset of garden nor a flowerbed. 

Just like a fountain in a park and a waterfall in the wilderness. 

Just to muddy the waters, several places I take pictures of flowers "in the 
wilderness" are transplanted and cultivated by the locals. Some of the flowers 
are native to other regions, and transplanted to similar climates to recreate 
the natural spectacle, and to diversify the locations (in case a volcano 
explodes and kills all the others in one spot). They care for the plants and 
increase their density to keep the (moneymaking) attraction. But these are 
pretty rare compared the flower spectacles I am talking about. 

There was an eruption on Mt Kusatsu-Shirane a few months ago; it was 400m from 
some mountain flowers they painstakingly transplanted a couple decades prior. I 
hope they all lived. 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/11094084766/

Javbw. 



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[John Willis]

Actual flower Farms are landuse=farmland crop=flowers. Yea, they may have a 
viewpoint and a gift shop. But those large commercial farms are not what I'm 
talking about. 

These are about tagging the actual beds of decorative flowers with 
landuse=flowerbed (which I think is totally a landuse - it is land dedicated to 
flowers for display or decoration), and tagging gardens that are "flower 
spectacles" - places that grow flowers primarily as a spectacle (and often 
charge admission) using a garden:type=foobar is the two tags I am asking for 
feedback on. Landuse=grass is crappy - is it for sports? picnicing? Roadside 
shoulder? Landscaping? 

Luckily flowers in a non-farm sense serve a single purpose - to be looked at. 
They are colorful decorations. You don't sleep on them. You don't play sports 
on them. People grow flowers in dedicated land merely to be enjoyed. 



Several places around the world grow tulips and build a Dutch windmill to 
emulate a working landuse=farmland - but just as Space Mountain is neither a 
spaceship nor an actual mountain, these are tourist attractions made to emulate 
the look of a farm for people looking to take pictures. These fall into the 
category of "flower attractions" and I want to tag these as such. 

When I lived in San diego, the only thing I had ever seen like this is the 
Carlsbad flower fields. There are formal botanical gardens and rose gardens - 
but a town or large commercial park just doesn't purposefully grow very large 
fields of flowers in a large field and put out a viewing platform like they do 
in Japan *and* get hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of people a week 
that come to just merely view the spectacle  that they purposefully made, year 
after year in the same spot and static configuration. 

Maybe it is common in the rest of the world, but these flower spectacles (and 
their dedicated area just for flowers) seems something that needs precise 
tagging. 

Javbw

> On Apr 10, 2018, at 2:19 PM, Clifford Snow  wrote:
> 
> In John Wills original post he talked about tulip farms. T

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Apr 2018, at 07:37, Marc Gemis  wrote:
> 
> Not all "flowerbeds" that are tourist attractions are  human made.


they are. A flowerbed is about something human made. What you have been posting 
is a forest. Maybe the term flower field could apply (don’t know), but 
flowerbed doesn’t.

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 10. Apr 2018, at 02:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> =-O Is it really a 'landuse'? Or better as a 'landcover'?



IMHO it is neither. I would see those flowerbeds that are part of a road or 
square as landuse=highway. Those in a park are part of the park landuse 
(implied by leisure=park), those in private gardens are residential landuse. 
Those in flower shows are part of the show landuse.
For a single flowerbed I would use something like man_made=flowerbed
If you want to tag the flowers you could add a landcover object for the flowers 
(but this wouldn’t be the same as the flowerbed object), or probably better, 
invent a property for the flowerbed object which gives information about the 
flowers in it.

A huge exhibition area with flowers would IMHO not be well represented by the 
word flowerbed (and it would likely consist of several flower areas)

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Marc Gemis]

As mentioned earlier (maybe a year ago) in a similar thread on
flowers/flowerbeds, I mapped quite a few of them:
http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/nl/map/rozentuin-rose-garden-vrijbroekpark_21719#18/51.02054/4.46236
As said back then, I am willing to retag them when something betters
turns up. Nothing happened last time. I only need a good
landuse/landcover/leisure combination though, yes all three of them.

regards

m


On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 1:51 AM, John Willis  wrote:
>
> On Apr 10, 2018, at 5:47 AM, John Willis  wrote:
>
> landuse=flowerbed
>
>
> 
>
> Although I searched the wiki and didn’t find the page I was looking for —
> when I googled for it, I found a “defacto” page made for landuse=flowerbed.
>
> 1200 uses.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dflowerbed
>
> I think making this page more fleshed out would serve well.
>
> Define it as an area used primarily for decorative flowers and other
> ornamental plants (that are not hedges or trees).
>
> That tag can be used in the decorations seen out front of a mall or school,
> the beds of flowers in a rose garden, large outdoor flower installations, or
> a decorative display found in roadside landscaping.
>
> Let the larger landuse define the purpose (garden, retail, park, median,
> etc), just like we use fence, wall, or parking.
>
> Javbw
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Marc Gemis]

Not all "flowerbeds" that are tourist attractions are  human made.

The Hallerbos near Brussels is famous for its bluebells [1], which are
only carrying flowers for a couple of weeks.
Outside this period, the forest remains a nice place to walk, but is
not really a tourist attraction anymore
I haven't seen a proposal in this thread that would be appropriate for
this area.

regards

m

[1] https://www.hallerbos.be/en/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Clifford Snow]

In John Wills original post he talked about tulip farms. These are tourist
attractions around me,  but really it's about farming. Around me they plant
tulips to harvest the bulbs with a side business of tourism.

Farming is different than gardens. Both are valid.

Clifford

-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Warin]

On 10/04/18 09:51, John Willis wrote:


On Apr 10, 2018, at 5:47 AM, John Willis > wrote:


landuse=flowerbed




Although I searched the wiki and didn’t find the page I was looking 
for — when I googled for it, I found a “defacto” page made for 
landuse=flowerbed.


1200 uses.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dflowerbed 



I think making this page more fleshed out would serve well.

Define it as an area used primarily for decorative flowers and other 
ornamental plants (that are not hedges or trees).


Why the height restriction? Some shrubs and trees have spectacular 
flowers...




That tag can be used in the decorations seen out front of a mall or 
school, the beds of flowers in a rose garden, large outdoor flower 
installations, or a decorative display found in roadside landscaping.


Let the larger landuse define the purpose (garden, retail, park, 
median, etc), just like we use fence, wall, or parking.


=-O Is it really a 'landuse'? Or better as a 'landcover'?

Roadside landscaping is really use of the land for the road verge and as 
such is really landuse=road/highway.


I think that the  tag should be for what is there - the land cover.
What the land is used for can change from one flower bed to another.
Possibly this landuse=flowerbed thinking follows that ridiculous tag 
landuse=grass?


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[John Willis]

> On Apr 10, 2018, at 5:47 AM, John Willis  wrote:
> 
> landuse=flowerbed



Although I searched the wiki and didn’t find the page I was looking for — when 
I googled for it, I found a “defacto” page made for landuse=flowerbed. 

1200 uses. 

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse%3Dflowerbed 


I think making this page more fleshed out would serve well. 

Define it as an area used primarily for decorative flowers and other ornamental 
plants (that are not hedges or trees). 

That tag can be used in the decorations seen out front of a mall or school, the 
beds of flowers in a rose garden, large outdoor flower installations, or a 
decorative display found in roadside landscaping.

Let the larger landuse define the purpose (garden, retail, park, median, etc), 
just like we use fence, wall, or parking. 

Javbw___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[John Willis]

During this discussion it is evident That we need a macro "venue" tag *And* A 
micromapping "flower bed" tag together. 

let's take a Rose garden for example. 
The garden itself is one big landuse. The standard "garden" tag should suffice. 

Then there are all the little pieces inside. The paths, fountains, etc. The 
Rose garden is 30-40 smaller flowerbeds bordered by paths and walls. This is 
where we need the new micromapping tag. 

Landuse=flowerbed. (Flower_bed?) 

Next: Tulip "attraction" grounds (not the actual commercial farm). 

First problem - how do you tag the entire venue? It is a single landuse with 
parking, shops, etc. Some new value for the existing garden:type=* subtag 
should probably be created for these outdoor large-scale "spectacles". 

Then map the paths and tracks and driveways and the windmill as normal. 

Then the tulip fields themselves. Theey could be mapped as one big field 
between the service roads. My venue would use 2-3. 
But the tulips are mapped to their color and variety (they each have a name) 
and we are now back to having 30-40 small landuse=flowerbed. 

Lastly:  a large single "spectacle" my flowers on the hill, the sunflower 
displays for tourism (as Dave mentioned, happens here too). These often 
re-occur in the exact same spot year after year and a small toursit spot is 
open for the few weeks it is beautiful; part of the late summer feastivals. 

Same new garden:type=* tag. Paths and parking. The viewpoint, if present. 

Then a large landuse=flowerbed for the big field of sunflowers or nemophila or 
whatever. 

Javbw

> On Apr 9, 2018, at 9:15 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer  
> wrote:
> 
> maybe it could be tagged as garden with fee and a (new) subtype? For reference

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-04-09 15:14 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć :

> W dniu 09.04.2018 o 14:15, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze:
>
> maybe it could be tagged as garden with fee and a (new) subtype? For
> reference, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type
> e.g. garden:type=garden_show or flower_show
>
>
> There's also another property of gardens and it sounds even better for me
> - what it looks like (like zen, rosarium, herb_garden), not where it
> belongs and how it's operated (like residential or botanical):
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:style
>



yes I know, for "flower_show" I would use garden:type

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 09.04.2018 o 14:15, Martin Koppenhoefer pisze:
> maybe it could be tagged as garden with fee and a (new) subtype? For
> reference, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type
> e.g. garden:type=garden_show or flower_show

There's also another property of gardens and it sounds even better for
me - what it looks like (like zen, rosarium, herb_garden), not where it
belongs and how it's operated (like residential or botanical):

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:style

-- 
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-04-09 13:47 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout :

> But we're not talking about either farmland or a crop in this case. The
> flowers (or flowerbed, if you prefer) I'm talking about is actually a
> tourist attraction and is maintained for that purpose.
>


maybe it could be tagged as garden with fee and a (new) subtype? For
reference, see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type
e.g. garden:type=garden_show or flower_show

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-04-09 13:43 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć :

> Maybe it sounds strange, but when analyzing the meaning of "garden" in
> OSM to make osm-carto rendering sane, I have found that size can vary a
> lot. It can be as small as flowerbed (but there are other plants than
> only flowers - this is commonly mistagged as "village green" BTW), but
> also a big botanical garden.
>


yes, but I would say a flowerbed is different, because when it becomes big,
it changes name and becomes a flower field. The thing with gardens is that
they come in different sizes and types, and there are subtags to further
specifiy the object.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Dave Swarthout]

But we're not talking about either farmland or a crop in this case. The
flowers (or flowerbed, if you prefer) I'm talking about is actually a
tourist attraction and is maintained for that purpose.

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:38 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> 2018-04-09 13:08 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :
>
>> On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:50:50 +
>> Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>>
>> > How about
>> > tourism=attraction
>> > attraction=flowers
>>
>> I think that man_made=flowerbed + tourism=attraction would be
>> preferable, it would allow tagging also flower fields that are not a
>> tourism attraction at all.
>>
>>
>
> +1, I would also prefer not creating a category for attractions which
> would then be defined as what they are by subtags, because everything can
> happen to be an attraction and it would ultimately lead to double tagging
> everything, an attraction version and not.
>
> For the flower field, maybe landuse=farmland with crop=* could also be an
> option?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 09.04.2018 o 02:28, John Willis pisze:
> Flowerbed? seems a little weird to tag 3000m2 as a flowerbed. But if
> it is approved I will use it.

Maybe it sounds strange, but when analyzing the meaning of "garden" in
OSM to make osm-carto rendering sane, I have found that size can vary a
lot. It can be as small as flowerbed (but there are other plants than
only flowers - this is commonly mistagged as "village green" BTW), but
also a big botanical garden.

I'm not sure however what is the best tagging for flower field.

-- 
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-04-09 13:08 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:50:50 +
> Dave Swarthout  wrote:
>
> > How about
> > tourism=attraction
> > attraction=flowers
>
> I think that man_made=flowerbed + tourism=attraction would be
> preferable, it would allow tagging also flower fields that are not a
> tourism attraction at all.
>
>

+1, I would also prefer not creating a category for attractions which would
then be defined as what they are by subtags, because everything can happen
to be an attraction and it would ultimately lead to double tagging
everything, an attraction version and not.

For the flower field, maybe landuse=farmland with crop=* could also be an
option?


Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:50:50 +
Dave Swarthout  wrote:

> How about
> tourism=attraction
> attraction=flowers

I think that man_made=flowerbed + tourism=attraction would be
preferable, it would allow tagging also flower fields that are not a
tourism attraction at all.

Though, there are also places where wild flowers are an attraction for
a part of the year (for example Crocus flowers in Tatra Mountains).

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2018-04-09 9:32 GMT+02:00 Philip Barnes :

> A museum just needs standard opening hours tagging.
>
>

then you wouldn't be able to distinguish between a museum that is a tourist
attraction only when open and one that is an attraction also when closed.
;-)

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On 04/09/2018 01:35 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> On 9. Apr 2018, at 08:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> humm ... for me it is only an attraction when in flower. So would
>> need some seasonal tagging with the tourism tag?
> 
> 
> 
> Following this logics, what about museums, aren’t they only
> attractions when open, and we should use conditional tagging?

Regarding museums, we have opening_hours=* for that, don't we?

While opening_hours=* wouldn't be appropriate for a flower field, some
tagging about the type of flower and possibly when it's expected to be
in bloom could be added.

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Philip Barnes]

A museum just needs standard opening hours tagging.

The start of a flower season will vary from year to year. This year everything 
is really late. 

Phil (trigpoint) 



On 9 April 2018 07:35:07 BST, Martin Koppenhoefer  
wrote:
>
>
>sent from a phone
>
>> On 9. Apr 2018, at 08:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> humm ... for me it is only an attraction when in flower. So would
>need some seasonal tagging with the tourism tag?
>
>
>
>Following this logics, what about museums, aren’t they only attractions
>when open, and we should use conditional tagging?
>
>
>cheers,
>Martin 
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Apr 2018, at 08:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> humm ... for me it is only an attraction when in flower. So would need some 
> seasonal tagging with the tourism tag?



Following this logics, what about museums, aren’t they only attractions when 
open, and we should use conditional tagging?


cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Warin]

humm ... for me it is only an attraction when in flower. So would need 
some seasonal tagging with the tourism tag?


Flowers can be part of agriculture - grown for sale in florist shops for 
example.


On 09/04/18 11:50, Dave Swarthout wrote:

How about
tourism=attraction
attraction=flowers

There are similar areas in Thailand for sunflowers.

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018, 7:29 AM John Willis > wrote:


TL:DR - we need a “flower field” tag or a variant of flowerbed.
 tat is not related to farming, but more to garden or tourism.
This is a tag for the field itself, not the entire location, which
may need a garden:type=spectacle value to define it.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/flowerbed (yay!
more landuse= values!)

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type



I visited a tulip field In Japan yesterday; thousands of people
coming to take photographs of a field of flowers and the Dutch
windmill they built.
http://www.city.sakura.lg.jp/000674.html

This is very similar to the flower fields (and windmill) in
Calrlsbad, California - the tulips and other flowers grown are a
spectacle to attract visitors.
http://www.theflowerfields.com

It is not a commercial farm which happens to be pretty.  it is a
carefully planned place to attract tourists to see the flowers as
a spectacle - like a garden or park.

I understand that in Holland, those are commercial farms
(landuse=farmland crop=flowers), the beauty is incidental. But
people recreate the spectacle on a smaller scale as purely a
tourist attraction.

Similarly, Hitachinaka Park has a large hill which they rotate the
crop of flowers (Nemophila is the most popular) and tens of
thousands of people come to see the flowers every season.

I tagged the flower area on the hill a year or so ago - but was
unsure of how to tag the flowered ground. I left it untagged.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/378065849

Visible here

https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/23417161516/in/dateposted-public/ (
Fall).
https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/11094010745/in/dateposted-public/ (
Spring) .

There are also large fields of colorful shibazakura that are
planted as a tourist attraction. in many large flower grounds.
In all these instances, the flower fields are a tourist
attraction. their primary purpose is similar to a botanical garden
- they are grown to be viewed - but in a garden/park like atmosphere.

These images are very popular online, especially the large field
near Mt Fuji. . https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=shibazakura

chichibu:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/23075345199/in/dateposted-public/

People may buy some flowers, but it is incidental - people
primarily come to see them. It’s not flower art - there is no
“image” grown into the flowers - the flowers themselves are the
attraction.

having it tagged as farmland seems wrong. It’s not a crop. It’s
not a plant nursery. It’s not a botanical garden.

 It’s not a “park” -  the entire location may be a form of
“garden” tagged as a tourist attraction, but the **field itself**
needs a tag.

Flowerbed? seems a little weird to tag 3000m2 as a flowerbed. But
if it is approved I will use it.

Suggestions?

Javbw


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Flower fields as tourism attraction

[Dave Swarthout]

How about
tourism=attraction
attraction=flowers

There are similar areas in Thailand for sunflowers.

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018, 7:29 AM John Willis  wrote:

> TL:DR - we need a “flower field” tag or a variant of flowerbed.  tat is
> not related to farming, but more to garden or tourism. This is a tag for
> the field itself, not the entire location, which may need a
> garden:type=spectacle value to define it.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/flowerbed (yay!
> more landuse= values!)
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:garden:type
>
> 
>
> I visited a tulip field In Japan yesterday; thousands of people coming to
> take photographs of a field of flowers and the Dutch windmill they built.
> http://www.city.sakura.lg.jp/000674.html
>
> This is very similar to the flower fields (and windmill) in Calrlsbad,
> California - the tulips and other flowers grown are a spectacle to attract
> visitors.
> http://www.theflowerfields.com
>
> It is not a commercial farm which happens to be pretty.  it is a carefully
> planned place to attract tourists to see the flowers as a spectacle - like
> a garden or park.
>
> I understand that in Holland, those are commercial farms (landuse=farmland
> crop=flowers), the beauty is incidental. But people recreate the spectacle
> on a smaller scale as purely a tourist attraction.
>
> Similarly, Hitachinaka Park has a large hill which they rotate the crop of
> flowers (Nemophila is the most popular) and tens of thousands of people
> come to see the flowers every season.
>
> I tagged the flower area on the hill a year or so ago - but was unsure of
> how to tag the flowered ground. I left it untagged.
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/378065849
>
> Visible here
>
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/23417161516/in/dateposted-public/ (
> Fall).
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/11094010745/in/dateposted-public/ (
> Spring) .
>
> There are also large fields of colorful shibazakura that are planted as a
> tourist attraction. in many large flower grounds.
> In all these instances, the flower fields are a tourist attraction. their
> primary purpose is similar to a botanical garden - they are grown to be
> viewed - but in a garden/park like atmosphere.
>
> These images are very popular online, especially the large field near Mt
> Fuji. . https://www.google.co.jp/search?q=shibazakura
>
> chichibu:
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/javbw/23075345199/in/dateposted-public/
>
> People may buy some flowers, but it is incidental - people primarily come
> to see them. It’s not flower art - there is no “image” grown into the
> flowers - the flowers themselves are the attraction.
>
> having it tagged as farmland seems wrong. It’s not a crop. It’s not a
> plant nursery. It’s not a botanical garden.
>
>  It’s not a “park” -  the entire location may be a form of “garden” tagged
> as a tourist attraction, but the **field itself** needs a tag.
>
> Flowerbed? seems a little weird to tag 3000m2 as a flowerbed. But if it is
> approved I will use it.
>
> Suggestions?
>
> Javbw
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging