<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2017-10-15 15:46 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:osm@imagico.de" target="_blank">osm@imagico.de</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Sunday 15 October 2017, Dave Swarthout wrote:<br>
</span><span class="">> I agree that tagging the entire lease area as landuse=industrial is<br>
> not correct. Part of the reason for posting is that I'm looking for<br>
> alternative ways to tag the large lease areas. Is there a boundary<br>
> tag that someone can suggest?<br>
<br>
</span>I am not sure if - unless there is a fence - this can be considered<br>
verifiable. In OSM we don't map land ownership or land use rights and<br>
we only map boundaries if they are meaningful to normal people (which<br>
is usually the case for administrative boundaries or nature reserves).<br>
A mining claim or oil drilling rights do not seem to qualify since - as<br>
i understand it - you may still do anything in the area you may do<br>
elsewhere (other than drilling of course).</blockquote></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">I think we don't map individual land ownership or land use rights because of privacy concerns, but for companies that's not a consideration, and we do map "operator"s of features, which sometimes means the same. IMHO in the case of oilfields, if the information is publicly available, there wouldn't be a problem to map the company that has the concession, and its spatial extension, even more but not limited to fenced areas.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Cheers,</div><div class="gmail_extra">Martin<br></div></div>