<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/6/20 10:16 pm, Mateusz Konieczny
via Tagging wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:M9Iqzec----2@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jun 6, 2020, 06:20 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 class="">On 3/6/20 7:22 am, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by <a
href="mailto:steveaOSM@softworkers.com" class=""
rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">steveaOSM@softworkers.com</a>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8;
padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"
class="tutanota_quote">
<div>"this IS residential landuse." (Not COULD BE, but IS).
Yes, this land might be "natural" now, including being
"treed," but I could still build a patio and bbq there
after perhaps cutting down some trees, it is my
residential land and I am allowed to do that, meaning it
has residential use, even if it is "unimproved" presently.
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>It is a residential property, not a residential landuse.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I have a few trees on my residential property. I use then
for; shade, to sit under, to have a BBQ under, read a book
under, think about things. People park their cars, caravans
and boats under them.<br>
</p>
<p>They are part of my home ... they are used by me ... as my
residence. <br>
</p>
<p>If trees are to be excluded from OSM residential landuse,
will grass and flowers be removed too? Are only buildings to
be mapped as residential landuse in OSM? I think that would be
ridiculous. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8;
padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"
class="tutanota_quote">
<div>These facts do add to the difficulty: OSM doesn't wish
to appear to be removing property rights from residential
landowners (by diminishing landuse=residential areas)<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Are there people somehow believing that edits in OSM
affect property rights and may remove them?<br>
</div>
<div>That is ridiculous.<br>
</div>
<blockquote style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8;
padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"
class="tutanota_quote">
<div>but at the same time, significant portions of these
areas do remain in a natural state, while distinctly and
presently "having" residential landuse. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>For me and in my region (Poland) it would be treated as a
clearly incorrect mapping.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Parks here can have scrub, trees, grass and /or flowers -
that does not mean they are not parks because of the land
cover. <br>
</p>
<p>I would contend similar consideration by held for residential
landuse. <br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<div>Yes, landuse=residential may include areas with tree, I fully
agree here.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But "portions of these areas do remain in a natural state"
with residential status limited<br>
</div>
<div>solely to legal status (land ownership, legal right to build
something there and start using<br>
</div>
<div>this land as landuse=residential) cases seem quite dubious to
me.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>As far as I know some of the trees are 'natural' on my place... I
still use them. <br>
</p>
<p>How do you know that the 'residential status' is limited to the
legal and not additionally used for the personal enjoyment of the
people residing there? <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>