"The following tags implicate this tag: bamboo_forest."
Posted under Tags
"The following tags implicate this tag: bamboo_forest."
Is bamboo a tree or a grass? If a grass then this implication must be denied because of bamboo forest. I strongly believe bamboo should not be considered for Danbooru purposes to be trees because of the colloquial idea of a tree. At the very least most the pictures in bamboo forest you would not consider trees, regardless of how they may be classed scientifically.
Additionally on its face I don't think trees necessarily need to be visible. Mushrooms, ferns, vines, grass, and other foliage are often sufficient. Trees could also be poorly drawn and more of a green red (autumn colors) blur rather than clearly defined.
I say maybe add some more suggested tags to the forest wiki but -1 for implication.
-1
iridescent_slime said:
-1
- The forest tag is often used for distant terrain where individual trees appear too indistinct to be worth tagging. If I search for tree, I don't want post #2252231 and post #2500888 to appear in my search results.
- Bamboo forest implies forest. Bamboo is a type of grass, not a tree.
- Forum topic #6851.
Okay, I agree that the kind of pictures you linked should not show up when one is searching for tree and forest would be the right tag for that.
While we're on the subject, I've been thinking that maybe we need a new tag to distinguish scenes set in the middle of a forest (post #1030859, post #2088986, post #2136802) from those where a forest is only visible in the far-off background or as part of a landscape (post #404157, post #1111088, post #1306772). Something like in forest or distant forest, I dunno. Thoughts?
At what point does a forest become distant?
And should images only count as in a forest if said forest is visibly on all sides of the image's focal point, or would it also be used for the likes of post #2493043 where they could be either right in the heart of the forest or outside its edge? Or does the edge count as distant, as in one of the examples given for distant (post #1306772) it is barely more than a house block distance away, and is a similar distance as post #2479733 - which could also be considered as being set in the middle of the forest.
What would post #2510588 fall under, if either?
The problem is that the forest tag is implicating nature.
So the question isn't if a forest is distant or not, but if it is in the focus of the image and something within the focus. For example the post #404157 has forests, but the focus on the image is scenery and not nature (here in particular we have a contrast between city and forest.) So it would be correct in my eyes to tag this with forest, but not with the nature tag.
So in that case we would have a forest + scenery tag combination.
For post #1306772 the same (forest +scenery -nature)
Or are there some problems with removing the implication from forest to nature? I mean, nature could always be tagged seperately since there are some posts that show forests, but are also showing towns or the forest is in the background.
kuuderes_shadow said:
At what point does a forest become distant?
...What would post #2510588 fall under, if either?
A tag with lots of stipulations to cover every possible corner case is bound to get misused or simply ignored, so I don't like making things overly complicated. I think any forest sufficiently close that individual trees can be easily picked out from the surrounding mass of green is too close to consider "distant" in any case. Obviously there will be borderline cases, but as with other tags, such situations are often best left to the tagger's judgment.
That post #2510588 is an interesting one, as the foreground tree and brush hints that the POV may be situated inside the edge of a forest, looking out into a clearing, but there isn't enough visible to know for sure. When in doubt, it's usually best to only use the most nonspecific tag (forest).
Provence said:
The problem is that the forest tag is implicating nature.
...
If topic #968 and topic #9890 have proven anything, it's that we still can't agree upon what the nature tag is supposed to mean. On the one hand, the tag is diluted to meaningless by things like post #988303, and on on the other hand, there are images tagged nature like post #1378193 that fit the popular definition of "nature" but don't conform to the tag's description. I tried to start a discussion about this in topic #11253 but nobody showed any interest.
The tag implication forest -> tree has been rejected.