<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Jun 2, 2020, 20:16 by steveaOSM@softworkers.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><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 class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><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 class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><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> </body>
</html>