Yes, if he is blocked in by your pawn structure then he is a "bad bishop" and should be traded for black's bishop if black's bishop is more active.
Keep in mind if you have a bishop pair and black has only one bishop, then you might not want to trade since the second bishop that completes a pair is worth more than the value of a bishop by itself.
Also note: It is a good idea to say "trade", and reserve "exchange" for "The Exchange" of a minor for major piece or people get confused.
It's technically labeled your bad bishop, that's correct.
And in the situation you describe it would almost certainly be worth trading, but not necessarily in every position. Also bad bishops can be active if they're outside the pawn chain.
Other than exchanging it, you could also move your pawns off of dark squares. In your example that would be possible as long as the opposing pawns haven't locked in.
It's good to remember especially for center pawns... as long as you have the possibility of eventually moving them off that color, it can easily be worth it to preserve the pair instead of blindly following the "bad' label and getting rid of the bishop quickly just because many of your pawn are currently on it's color.
This is a temporarily bad bishop because the nishop can manoeuvre, while the third is a good bishop, although the position is a draw...
You are actually wrong about the last example boymaster. In the third example the bishop is still a bad bishop, since this is purely a definition. It's still on the same color as the (central) pawns. Because it's outside the pawnchain it might be a bit more _active_ (although it still can't attack anything). But the activity of a bishop does not change the definition of a good or bad bishop.
Also the third position is not a draw as black's king is locked in and white's king can slowly go and pick up g6.
Bah, why are people so friendly and eager to explain here.
Someone should just say, yes, that is about it. So I could ask - so this would be my bad dark square bishop.
It is not bad to have one more topic about it.
Positional understanding is a must at certain level of play. For a long time I played like a robot. If I see a piece, I capture it. But when I began to evaluate the value of each piece on the board, and to ask my self, why would I give my mighty Knight on d5 that no one can capture for lousy bishop that can't move, my chess games improved.
Evaluating the position on the board is yet another lvl of chess skill that I am still weak at. I analysed some of GM matches in frits, and I was amased to see that most of the time, when they agree to draw, Fritz would evaluate position as 0.00 (+-0.15). I know I draw many games where I was much better.
I am lazy as one can be, and all I have played for some time was gambits. I win or lose fast. But lately I started playing closed and semi-closed games, where picece maneuvering can not show it's strength or weaknesess right away, but when game opens up, you can see all your mistakes from earlier.
Going into positional chess is like discovering a whole new world for me. We all play for tactics, and great combinations. And I was surprised to see that there is so much opportunities for tactic in positional and closed games.
If I am not mistaken is this an example of bad bishop:
I (white) have black square bishop, all my pawns are on black squares and all black pawns are on white squares. Should I try and exchange that bishop for blacks dark square bishop? Is my dark square bishop a bad bishop?