<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-10-31 22:35 GMT+01:00 Warin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com" target="_blank">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><span class="">
<div class="m_9004449299362670123moz-cite-prefix">On 01-Nov-17 02:26 AM, Christian Rogel
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<p><span style="font-family:'.SFUIText';font-size:17pt">"Landuse=forest" may remain
for large forests off the inhabited places.</span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</span><font size="+3">No!<br>
<br>
Only if the tree area is to be used for the production of material
for human use. <br>
<br>
IF not then it is not a 'land use' but a 'land cover' and should
not be tagged 'landuse'. </font></div></blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">what kind of material qualifies? Isn't the production of oxygen from carbondioxide something we all rely on?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Cheers,</div><div class="gmail_extra">Martin<br></div></div>