<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 08/06/18 18:25, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:LETV2TB--3-0@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
8. Jun 2018 00:48 by <a href="mailto:kevin.b.kenny+osm@gmail.com"
target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">kevin.b.kenny+osm@gmail.com</a>:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra">In the meantime, there is no
supported tagging to show 'forestry' as a land use rather
than asserting 'every square metre of this polygon is
covered with trees.'<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I see no reason whatsoever to render this kind of landuse on
general purpose map.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Also, anyway there is nobody interested in tagging this
information, time wasted on this discussion</p>
<p>would allow to increase how many landuse=forestry hundredfold.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Seriously, so much time wasted on discussing landuse=forestry
and it has 9[sic!] uses.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'd quite happily change all 'my' local landuse=forest to
landuse=forestry ... there would then be a lot more than 9. <br>
Some 68 with recreational facilities and about 540 more with no
facilities. More in other places. And these truly are used for
production, not just the presence of trees. <br>
But the present renders and mappers would not like it. <br>
</body>
</html>