Is there a reason not to chop woods?

The only time I wouldn't chop a forest is when:
- it's on a river and I want to build a mill
- it's on a tile with a resource that requires a camp
- it's on a tile with a resource that requires a plantation (it seems to keep the bonus production rather than remove it)

Every other time it's chop, chop, chop.

 

A points game with a weak prod city need all the cogs it can. Chop them with 10 turns to go to get the late extra points is my plan.... Still 210 turns away though.

 

Another thing to mention is the order of chopping. It seems fairly obvious, though:

• Prioritize chopping where you're going to place districts
• Chop then every hill that you'll mine
• Chop rainforests when you need a little food boost for next next district
• Lastly, chop any flat terrain that you won't put a lumbermill

 

I tend to just not chop crazy.
I have a certain amount of builder tasks so what is more important at the moment after all Chopping later may be more important. Also can I use a card for overflow (a small thing if you really think anout it)
Certainly chopping after feudalism is a time worth waiting for. I often go crazy then so I can free up the card space

 

God I miss being able to chop outside of my city's borders. Back then a game as the Aztecs was like coordinating a Tyranid invasion, converting their units into workers and then using their workers to strip the area between my empire and theirs.

 

Using Legion to chop INSIDE other civilizations borders was pretty funny.

 

Chop every forested hill even it is on a river and build a mine instead if you plan to use this city for Ruhr Valley.

 

I have just played a game and removed a lot of jungle over time. Several opponents are upset that I am ruining the planet and it has affected my diplomacy rating.

 

Its a shame you cannot plant trees all over their farms to make up for it