Dear alester. The area defined by these ways is part of land managed under TFL 44, under licence to Western Forest Products. I can assure you that there are minimal or no "scrub" areas within the areas I have tagged as industrial - forest land. I, as a BC RPF (retired) and many other forest professionals have worked to ensure that all lands harvested under this licence are promptly reforested, and within a few years will have all the attributes of a young forest stand. The term scrub is not appropriate for any stands managed under this or other major tenures. I would appreciate your taking steps to revise this classification. Thank you.

OK, I agree. I used the administrative boundary tag to assist in defining areas. Should have removed it after use. Thanks.

Dear A Lester: Please let me know why you changed the relationships covered by this Changeset. If this is a procedure to be followed I would like to know, so that I can apply it elsewhere. Thank you, Robert Copithorne

Thanks for letting me know. Checking the history of that changeset, it was created on 11/01/16, which I take to mean 2011-01 (Jan)-16. At that time there was a proposal for a feature landuse=homestead. (osm.wiki/Proposed_features/Homestead), so I would have felt that its use was OK. I still feel that the feature as discussed in the WIKI article, is appropriate. I believe that changes in the OSM database can and should be an ongoing basis. With enough support, this feature may become accepted.
I see that some of the "homestead" areas have been rendered, and some not, so some confusion exists here. Where there is no opening around some residential buildings, my view of JOSM shows a polygon approximating the cleared area per Bing aerial imagery. although some editing is needed to match current imagery.

Thanks for the comment, Alan. I'll be able to respond in more detail shortly.

SomeoneElse, freebeer:
I was expecting way/618633991, enclosing "Alberni Sproat Lake Taylor Arm Woodlands" to appear on the rendered map.

I was attempting to split a large, complicated polygon in to smaller bits, as it was being rejected by the new rendering procedures in OSM.

The new polygon, including only Taylor Arm portion of Sproat Lake, was indicated by the OSM editor, as not having any errors, even though there were still errors in the original polygon, so I expected it to be rendered as natural=wood.

In the past I have been able to proceed with my editing in steps, with some portions of the posted ways carrying errors which I corrected later, usually within the next day. Perhaps this is no longer possible with the new rendering routines. I will have to work around this, if so.

I am still interested in getting way/618633991 on this changeset rendered, but I see from the details below that it has apparantly been deleted. If it has been deleted, can I safely go ahead and recreate it?
Thank you both for your comments. Any assistance is appreciated.
The tools demonstrated by the links you provided, achavi in Overpass, and OSM Inspector in Geofabrik, should be helpful in future.
Cheers

18 hours later:
This changeset does not appear to have been posted yet. The dataset I open when I start a fresh session of OSM using JOSM editor does not reflect these changes.
Is there a problem with this changeset? I was attempting to clear up problems indicated in previous posts arising out of changes in OSM internal procedures.

Thanks for letting me know. I'll look in to it and adjust as necessary.

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.

"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