On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 18:39, Clifford Snow <cliff...@snowandsnow.us> wrote:

> I'm not sure there would be a consensus agreement to revise the wiki to
> indicate landuse=forest should be used for timber production.  Thoughts?

>From the last seven or eight times this has come up in the past couple of

1) Somebody says we ought to make a distinction between trees that
are for timber production and trees that are not.

2) The word "forest" is wrong for timber production.  Because of the
vagaries of English it should be "forestry" as forests are not
always for timber production.  It's also syntactically better

3) As always we have the problem of all the landuse=forest
that has already been mapped that would have to be checked.
Which is another argument for using landuse=forestry and
hoping landuse=forest eventually fades away.

4) People bring up various objections to landuse=forestry.
Some insist that we absolutely must stick with landuse=forest
and its unfortunate ambiguities.  Others argue that we shouldn't
make any distinction and that every group of trees should be
natural=wood whether it is used for timber production or not.

5) The argument then rapidly goes downhill, no agreement is
reached, and we drop the issue until the next time it comes up.

6) I get even more cynical than I was the last time the issue
came up.

Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to