I have noticed several instances where another contributor has modified entries I have made over the preceding months and years, without advising me. Having initiated a discussion with the reviser and received an explanation that I felt was inadequate, I provided further explanations and requested the reviser to reverse the changes that they had made, and that I would agree to taking the matters over which we disagree to an open forum, if there was still a disagreement.

At this time the revisions I disagree with have not been reverted, and I have heard nothing further from the reviser.

I can make the reversions myself, which will involve significant work, or I can choose to abandon OpenStreetMap altogether, on the basis that there is no effective protocol to protect my contributions from changes without notice or discussion.

I welcome comments from other contributors on the protocol for dealing such conflicts of opinion.

Monday Feb 25, 2019 My concern is that large areas of predominately forest land in rural B.C. have not been adequately dealt with in terms of Land Use. In B.C.and in the particular area that is my concern, all of the land base has been allocated. Some has been acquired as private land, some as institutional land, and large portion licenced for Managed Forest use, under Tree Farm Licences. In addition, large portions of private land have been categorized as Tree Farms with significant tax advantages, in return for which the land is to be managed using sound forestry principles, similar to those required for Tree Farm Licences..

These previously untouched forest lands have been managed as industrial forest lands, and many of these lands are only accessible through roads that are classified as Industrial Roads.

The extent of industrial activity on these lands is visible from the roads, and very easy to see on the aerial photos, e.g Bing aerial imagery or Mapbox Satellite photos.

The net result of my mapping activities is to have large watershed base units categorized as natural=wood, with specific areas that have subject to industrial activity, i.e. harvesting, also categorized as landuse=industrial and industrial=forest.

In this way, both the vegetation and the land use reflect most closely the actual situation for both specific areas, and large areas. Land use and Natural classifications can coexist without conflict.

To look at a sample of how these two classifications can coexist without conflict, see the following area (or follow the location below): osm.org/?mlat=49.4090&mlon=-125.0980#map=14/49.4090/-125.0980

My overriding concern is that large areas are being depicted as natural areas, without adequate notice being taken of the effects of industrial activities - road building, harvesting, regeneration and second growth stand management, that are changing the face of the landscape.

I would appreciate any comments on this particular issue.

Re: Changeset: 61902366 180822 1414 edit Alberni Sproat Lake Taylor Woodlands - 0 errors 2274

I posted this changeset to correct problems with polygons arising out of new OSM rendering procedures - the most significant edit being to split a large polygon into two or more smaller polygons. I have created a new polygon, which JOSM tells me has no errors, although errors still exist in the remaining old plygon which still need to be corrected.

As this changeset hasn’t been posted yet, I can’t proceed with further edits required as a result of changes in OSM procedure.

This is a followup to my previous question, for which I did receive responses, to help me to develop a better understanding of OpenStreetMap.

I want to post a screenshot saved as a jpeg image to a new diary entry, and attach an explanation of the problem illustrated in the screenshot. Is there any way to do this that doesn’t require posting to a third party application, then posting a link in the diary entry to the third party application?

I don’t have any third party applications that I can post the jpeg mage to, save Facebook. If I use Facebook, the link allows people to see other parts of my site; which isn’t acceptable.

I have a question to pose to the OSM contributors body regarding rendering of natural=wood areas, which I think would be better described with a screenshot of the rendered map.

I realize that OSM is powered by volunteer labour, and I highly appreciate it, I’d just like to find out how to get an answer to my question.

Specifically, some of the areas that I have tagged in the Alberni Valley as natural=wood, show up as dark green on the rendered map; whereas other, adjacent areas, with exactly the same tagging, do not show up as dark green but are essentially blank, nor do the labels attached the unrendered areas appear. If I could post a screen shot, this anomaly would be a lot easier to understand.

This problem has just recently appeared, and through no action of mine, as far as I know. I refer to the rendered map frequently, to view how my edits (using JOSM), appear.

… See full entry

Will this work: link to Facebook document?

How do I post screen shots in new diary entries?

Carry forward from previous Diary Entry:

“The OAuth 2.0 authorization framework enables a third-party application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service. “

I don’t understand why this is being requested, and why it applies to me. As far as I recall, I haven’t had to grant this authority on any previous uploadings on JOSM, or any other site.

Anybody who has some information, I would be pleased if you passed it on to me.

Thanks

Since this entry, I have noticed the following comment on release version 12926; a version not mentioned in the Changelog.:

“JOSM now uses a new code signing certificate sponsored by ​FOSSGIS .e.v (required for WebStart)”

When I go to FOSSGIS, I don’t see any mention of this requirement.

Possibly if I don’t use WebStart, I won’t run in to this problem.

If I’m doing something incorrectly, I’d like someone to let me know.

In the meantime, if I update to 13053, I’ll not use WebStart, but this seems a crude way of solving the problem. A better way would be to receive some explanation of the code signing certificate, and assurances that it is safe to use by the OSM contributors.

Hope to get some response to this. Thank you.

“The OAuth 2.0 authorization framework enables a third-party application to obtain limited access to an HTTP service. “

I don’t understand why this is being requested, and why it applies to me. As far as I recall, I haven’t had to grant this authority on any previous uploadings on JOSM, or any other site.

Anybody who has some information, I would be pleased if you passed it on to me.

Thanks

Recent discussion on breaking up multipolygons in to smaller units. Note that the original polygon contains many members. The objective was to show the original land use of an area adjacent to, and draining into, the Alberni Inlet as a natural wood (forest), then break the area in to smaller units based on the nature of the tenure. The tenure in most cases sets the major purpose of the land use.

The initial comment could be based on my saving a session with a number of errors which I intend to correct through the work to be done on setting smaller units, as described below.

Comment from (OSM contributor) about 6 hours ago

Do you know what you are doing?
Comment from Robert Copithorne about 3 hours ago

Hello. Yes, I believe I am doing what is required, but I am aware that I created a big potential problem for myself when I created a very large complex multipolygon related to land use in Alberni land areas. Things became more difficult when I started to break the large multipolygon in to smaller pieces; specifically portions related to Strathcona Park, and Western Forest Products operations at Great Central Lake. Currently I face a large task of separating the elements of the three multipolygons, but I am working on that, and I believe will be able to straighten it out.. Any suggestions you may have at this point that would help to reduce the work involved would be appreciated.

Comments from other users relevant to the issue of splitting multipolygons in to smaller units would be appreciated.

Additional Info: Having worked in Forestry in areas around Port Alberni, including updating Forest Inventory maps, I am intensely interested in developing a map of land uses, features and access roads in the Alberni Inlet drainage area, and adjacent areas, for the benefit of all users.

Referring to the OSM map of part of BLK 1324S on Mt Arrowsmith / Mt Cokely at the location

osm.org/?mlat=49.2676&mlon=-124.5756#map=16/49.2676/-124.5756:

Previous versions of Bing aerial imagery available through Java OSM editor clearly showed a harvested area and related roads surrounding the reference point, which were mapped and tagged as farmland. Tree farm that is, a concept with legal meaning in British Columbia.

Current available versions do not show the harvested area, indicating a change in the aerial photos, possibly to an earlier date.

Mapbox satellite views of the same area clearly show the harvested area.

What has happened? Why the change in Bing Satellite imagery? An explanation is desired, and a revision to Bing aerial imagery if necessary.

i would appreciate seeing comparisons of the area designated as abandoned ski resort, with the area designated cokely backcountry skiing. I believe their might be two areas, not one. If there are any old maps available to help resolve this issue, I would really like to see them.

I have an old brochure from the Mount Arrowsmith Ski Resort with a rough sketch of the ski trails, but nothing to tie the map in to. My view of the area I picked as a ski area fits the map better than the new area in my view. I can see how the new area could also be a ski area, but what distinguishes the areas?

Please reply as as I am anxious to resolve this issue.

I noticed that a number of my entries in OSM have been changed, without my knowledge. If something is changed for good reason, I would like to know about it, so that I can avoid problems requiring changes in future.

I have posted on Wednesday, September 23, 2015, the following comment on the changeset I found that changed an entry without my knowledge. I hope that the contributor to the changeset will let me know why the change was made as requested:

“Changeset:____

Fixing improper use of the name tag and various other incorrect tagging”

“improper use of the name tag”; “incorrect tagging” - please explain the proper use of the name tag, and the specific incorrect tagging, in the case of Roger Creek Main Regeneration Forest T.U. 3, without reference to Wiki. I am anxious to learn, and would like to know what the rational was in this case, so I can avoid such problems in future. Thank you