I have received some interesting and helpful comments on my post. Thanks to all. I shall look for breaks in the suspect polygons as a first step in resolving the problem.

Thank you, eddie0007. I hadn’t taken in to account that I was using Microsoft Edge for a new installation of JOSM on a different computer that I normally use. I can see that it would quite possibly have different login requirements when combined with the newest version of JOSM. I like Firefox, and use it on my regular computer, but tried using Edge with this new installation, to reduce the number of installed programs.

Thanks phillippec, for your reply.

Thank you, Sam Wilson, RicoElectrico.

Good to remember the basic concepts.

I agree generally with this organization. A lot of roads I’ve mapped were done from aerial photos.

I tend to see a hierarchy: Unclassified, Service, Track. Nearly all these roads are gravel, and have a Service tag “resource extraction”.

• Unclassified roads generally connect various forestry operating areas or harvested areas with delivery points.
• Service roads are generally only within harvested areas, or for other minor access needs.
• Tracks are generally wide enough for a forestry vehicle, but are no longer accessible without road opening activities; tree removal, washout repairs, etc.

A lot of forestry roads in my area (Vancouver Island) were built to a high load carrying capacity at one time, but are now overgrown, and are barely visible on aerial photos ( Bing, Mapbox). USGS topographic maps are often useful in identifying these roads, now tagged as tracks. USGS maps cover British Columbia, I guess because the province bridges the gap between Alaska and Continental US.

Most, if not all of the roads outside urban areas, were constructed to serve resource extraction activities. As such there is a visible pattern or flow of traffic from outlying areas to central delivery points.

Thanks, Warin61. I will try out your suggestions of layering, which I haven’t tried, and saving sessions, which I have done sometimes.

I was saving the particular session discussed above as I made my revisions, but chose to upload it at one point, although some errors needed to be corrected, to get an update on the map, and avoid conflicts, as others may be revising the map. I fully intend to address the errors shortly.

As to the designations of Land Cover and Land Use:

I would like to retain the tag natural=wood. I see it as the preliminary stage of land use. In most of the land area I am dealing with, there are large portions of original untouched forest as well as lots of rocks, and water (all of which can be considered part of a natural wood). In the case of managed forests, the management plan is to leave many of these areas untouched, perhaps for many years, so the natural=wood is appropriate. In this way, I think I am in agreement with your definition.

Land use is signified by a change in the forest cover, as you have described, either by forest operations (harvesting / road building) or by land clearing not covered by a forest management plan. To signify this, I change what was natural=wood to landuse=farmland. These changes are readily seen on aerial photos, so I don’t have to get in to worrying about what is a managed forest, and how to tag it. I use the tag farmland as opposed to forest, because visually it stands out on rendered maps replicating what is actually what is seen on the ground. I reject the proposal I’ve heard from others, to call regenerating forests “scrub” as they are far from it, being regenerated according to a very rigid formula. I would like to stick with the tag farmland for regenerating land, because under forest management licenses, as well as on private managed forest lands, the regeneration process is a form of farming, other than the longer time frame.

What will be needed when the currently designated (tree) farmland areas mature in to second growth stands remains to be seen. Visually they are very hard to distinguish from natural stands, without a closeup view, but it may be possible to use other mapping techniques to achieve this. My inclination would be to tag these area as “forest” under “Landuse” but this doesn’t exist in OSM yet, although there is a “Forest” under “Natural”. This could be changed by consensus, I imagine.

Sorry to go on at length about these land use issues but I am very interested in removing as much ambiguity as possible.

Hope that we are in agreement on these descriptions. If you have questions, or wish to discuss it further, please contact me.

Inappropriate OSM diary entry, please remove.

Inappropriate OSM diary entry, please remove.

Inappropriate OSM diary entry, please remove.

Inappropriate OSM diary entry, please remove.

What’s the difference between forestry & logging? The following addresses this question, and then discusses the issues raised by trying to map forests subject to both processes.

With apologies to Alan Trick; part of this comment has appeared in my reply to a recent email received from you.

Many people think of the two as the same but logging is the removal of a stand of trees for some purpose, such as land clearing or logging. Logging is one step in the process of continuous forest management.

Forestry or forest management begins with the assessing of a stand, and preparing a management plan. Usually, if the stand is suitable, it can be harvested, regenerated and grown to a mature state, ready for the process to begin again.

The similarities with farming of single or multi year crops are such that I have no problem with referring to managed forest land as farmland, regardless of its stage in the growth cycle.

The key distinguishing feature of forest farming is a management plan covering one or more rotation cycles.

Forest farmland generally exists in two states:

• Recently harvested areas, either regenerated or to be regenerated by natural regeneration or planting. At this stage of the rotation cycle, my choice of tags is: landuse=farmland. Such areas are easily distinguishable from aerial photos, and on the ground. While walking on trails in managed forest areas, one is aware mainly of the changes from recently harvested to unharvested areas.

• Unharvested areas. These are either mature and available for harvest, or still growing. the defining point at which they become available for harvest depends on the balance of current growth to the growth that would be achieved in a new stand, after harvesting and regeneration and is a key decision in the overall management plan. These areas are much more difficult to determine from aerial photos, or on the ground, and I prefer to use the tag natural=wood. Although they not identical to old-growth forests, as second growth approaches maturity, at least in stands in Temperate rain forests, they have enough similarities that for mapping purposes they can be tagged with a natural tag.

It should be noted that there are virtually no unmanaged forest stands in the area of Temperate rain forest, where I am carrying out my mapping.

I’m aware that there has been some past discussion of the basic tags to be used on wooded areas, but none seem to provide a satisfactory solution to the separation of the two states.

This explains in part why I am distressed when as source of information that I have been used to map the landuse of forested areas, such as has occurred with the change in the available Bing aerial imagery. The Mapbox satellite photos that are now available have significant deficiencies in this area which is very mountainous, ii.e. clouds which obscure the harvested areas and the roads constructed to extract the resources produced by harvesting.

Thank you for sending the FMBC map and the article on Arrowsmith Massif. The article was very interesting, but I wish it had been illuminated by a few sketches or old maps.

I’ve seen the FMBC map before, and it was helpful in a number of ways. I have been looking for old maps of the area but so far have only found a few. Unfortunately, the FMBC map makes no reference to a ski activities in the area of the northern park (Regional Park - Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District portion), although it does show ski trails in the southern park.

My intention with my mapping efforts is to show the land use of the Alberni Valley, centred on Port Alberni, which would approximate what one would see on the ground. My main source of information on the Arrowsmith area are the Bing Aerial photos. Examining them I discovered an unusual land formation in the area of what I determined to be north of Pass 40, south of Pass 60 and east of Pass Main and McBey Creek . There’s some confusion between different maps as to the names of some of the roads on Arrowsmith, so I have tried to sort them out as best I can. One of my main sources of information has been Forest Cover Maps produced by MacMillan Bloedel back in the 1990’s. These are the source maps from which the MB road maps were made so I have more confidence in their accuracy.

Here’s a screen print of the area I’m concerned about, which also shows the ski trails to the east at the end of “Old Ski Hill Access” road. I assumed that the old ski trails had been developed by Rosseau and friends. The area I thought was a ski hill shows a perimeter road, and numerous cuts through the timber. This isn’t consistent with logging practices; my assumption was that this area had also been developed for skiing, either alpine or cross country, so I set the land use as such. Perhaps the name, Mt Arrowsmith Ski Area, was fanciful, although I did call it Abandoned.

I can see a minor road circling the hill with two small lakes at its top. There are also indications of cut trails, appearing to be in a pattern consistent with ski trails. Since my main concern is land use, I felt it was reasonable to designate the area as an abandoned ski area. I do know that there was a cross country ski area developed by voluntary labour in the 90’s, which may account for the land use formations.

My intention was to visit the area this summer and confirm the existence of ski trails, either alpine or cross-country, and possibly the location of the old ski chalet. That the ski lifts and other equipment have been removed is not a problem for me as I am concerned with the what is visible on the ground now. I.e. the current land use.

I will keep making inquiries until I can definitely establish what created the land forms I described. I the meantime, i think the land use designation I originally developed should be reinstated, with a “Fixme” attached to verify it through a ground survey. Surely this is how mapping should proceed in steps, as knowledge is gained.

I appreciate any and all information I can get on the and there land use questions, and thank you and anybody else for replying.

Robert Copithorne