<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 23/01/19 07:37, Mateusz Konieczny
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:LWrH52V--3-1@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div style="16px" text-align="left">Jan 21, 2019, 12:03 AM by
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<div style="16px" text-align="left">The end to this madness is
for renders to recognise that the landuse=forest needs to be
rendered differently from natural=wood.<br>
</div>
<div style="16px" text-align="left">The essential difference
between the two is that landuse must have some human benefit,
a produce, and a clear way of doing that is to add the
rendering of a axe to the tree.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div style="16px" text-align="left">
<div style="16px" text-align="left">
<div style="16px" text-align="left">
<div style="16px" text-align="left"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="16px">(1) in a typical <g class="gr_ gr_659 gr-alert
gr_gramm gr_inline_cards gr_run_anim Punctuation only-ins
replaceWithoutSep" id="659" data-gr-id="659">rendering</g>
this distinction is completely unimportant<br>
</div>
<div style="16px">or at least not worth different rendering<br>
</div>
<div style="16px"><br>
</div>
<div style="16px">(2) other people have different mismatching
ideas what is the<br>
</div>
<div style="16px">"real" difference between natural=wood and
landuse=forest<br>
</div>
<div style="16px"><br>
</div>
<div style="16px">(3) there is no consistent difference in how
natural=wood and landuse=forest are used<br>
</div>
<div style="16px">by mappers<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If the is no difference between the two then there will be no
problem depreciating landuse=forest.<br>
<br>
There are some who do see a distinction of land use, and want to use
that distinction.<br>
If some landuse=forest were to be re tagged landuse=forestry as it
matches a definition of 'landuse' will those using landuse=forest be
happy with that? <br>
<br>
Will they then be happy that landuse=forest becomes depreciated as
it is seen as the same as natural=wood? <br>
<br>
----------------------------------------------------------<br>
A 'managed' tree area does not necessarily match the land use
definition.<br>
What is the purpose of this land management? Is there a produce that
is derived from the trees? <br>
If there is no produce than it is not landuse=forestry. <br>
<br>
A national park is 'managed' .. In Australia no produce comes out of
it. <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>