[Tagging] Oil fields - how to tag?

[Dave Swarthout]

There is no fence. In fact, the boundary as I've drawn it is a very, very
rough approximation. The State of Alaska in an extreme case of stupidity
won't provide the coordinates of such leases (or of its state parks or
recreation areas either) to the general public. It's only there to define
an area that I can tag with a name that will be searchable by interested
data consumers.

so perhaps just landuse=oil_lease, or more generally
landuse=resource_extraction, as suggested by Greg. The only objection I can
see arising is that some of these leases are almost entirely in the ocean
and some extend into the ocean. Personally, I'm not bothered by this but
others may have different opinions.

As an aside, while I was searching Taginfo for industrial=wellsite, I came
across dozens of objects that had an additional tag, industrisl=well_site.
This looks like a spelling mistake where the mapper, Mark Newnham, was
trying to cover all possibilities by tagging with both industrial=wellsite
and industrial=well_site and maybe was using a preset or automated edit. I
will try to contact Mark somehow (see below) to learn more. In the
meantime, his apparently incorrect tagging lends improper weight to the use
of 'well_site"  (304 instances) instead of "wellsite" (2074 instances).

On his profile page he states: "Beginning 2015 and until further notice,
because of time commitments to another open-source project, I'm an inactive
mapper. If you've come across something that I've done that you think is
wrong, feel free to change it. I'm not on any mailing lists, nor do I
review any forum posts or my inbox."

Opinions?

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 8:46 PM, Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de> wrote:

> On Sunday 15 October 2017, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> > I agree that tagging the entire lease area as landuse=industrial is
> > not correct. Part of the reason for posting is that I'm looking for
> > alternative ways to tag the large lease areas. Is there a boundary
> > tag that someone can suggest?
>
> I am not sure if - unless there is a fence - this can be considered
> verifiable.  In OSM we don't map land ownership or land use rights and
> we only map boundaries if they are meaningful to normal people (which
> is usually the case for administrative boundaries or nature reserves).
> A mining claim or oil drilling rights do not seem to qualify since - as
> i understand it - you may still do anything in the area you may do
> elsewhere (other than drilling of course).
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20171016/a1d0fb40/attachment-0001.html>