Please create more distiction among wetland

[BertMule]

Currently the many types of wetland look like this: wetland.

As you can see several types are rendered exactly (or almost) the same, while they do not look the same in real life. And are not represented well to begin with.

• marsh
• reedbed
• wet_meadow
• fen

They may even be modelled adjacent to each other. So that results in1 continuous area, consisting of parts that are no longer distinguishable.

Here is an example with wet_meadow and marsh. Reedbed nearby. They are indistinguishable.

So my request to create more distinction.

Particularly wet_meadow seems badly represented, and creates confusion. I have been using it, but I just preferred to leave or change a lot of parts to just simple grass.

[imagico]

We only render wetland=wet_meadow and wetland=marsh identically, all other mentioned wetland values are rendered in a distinct fashion. We do so because in practical use there is no consistent difference in use between those tags.

The wiki is not quite right on rendering of the different wetland values - actual rendering can be found here:

https://imagico.de/map/styleinfo/#style=osmcarto&section=tags&key=natural&value=wetland

I don't consider the difference between wetland=marsh and wetland=reedbed to be too subtle. Compared to other differences in landcover tagging these are semantically very close. But if you have a concrete design proposal for a different rendering we would consider that of course.

I would like to see more differentiation between different types of wetland but that would require tagging to be developed and consistently used. Unfortunately not much energy went into this topic from the mapping side since the main wetland values were introduced more than 15 years ago.

[BertMule]

Thanks for spelling out all the styles. I assume they are the actual current renderings. That is a useful link. I will have a better look at the rest of it.

My main problem is with wet_meadow, as that is effectively (almost) indistinguishable from marsh and reedbed. I would expect a more grass like appearance. Maybe with the stripes, without the plants.

Actually, how it looks in the ID-editor would be fine. That's the above, with a darker green.

[imagico]

I don't see a clear difference in practical use between wetland=wet_meadow and wetland=marsh. If one is consistently made in specific countries/regions then this should be documented. But depending on what difference you want to indicate exactly it might be better to introduce an additional tag with a well defined meaning instead.

[BertMule]

The example above contains various types of areas (though already changed to grass). It is a reality I am dealing with at various places.

It typically consists of former meadows, that are left to nature, probably with an increased water level. Wild grass and other vegetation is starting to grow, but it mainly still looks like grass.

It doesn't fit reed, marsh (or scrub). Wet_meadow is most appropriate, but it should be distinguishable of the others, otherwise there is no point.

The only thing I suggest to choose a more appropriate pattern, like described.

[imagico]

It doesn't fit reed, marsh (or scrub). Wet_meadow is most appropriate,

If that is consensus in your local community then i suggest you document the difference in use and try to convince other local communities of following that differentiation.

As i said so far i do not see a clear systematic difference in use between wetland=wet_meadow and wetland=marsh. If there turns out to be i'd welcome adding a differentiation in rendering. Likewise for new tagging concepts to better differentiate different types/states of herbaceous wetlands.