[Tagging] Oil fields - how to tag?

Dave Swarthout daveswarthout at gmail.com
Thu Oct 19 23:51:45 UTC 2017


I heard back from the original mapper, Mark Newnham, about the use of the
tag industrisl=well_site. He said it is clearly a mistake.

Yes, this is clearly a mistake on my part, although I believe at the time
the documentation on this was pretty thin. Feel free to fix to whichever is
correct

Mark


I can fix those tags easily (by removing them) but want to make sure I
don't run afoul of the automated editing guidelines.

Opinions?

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 7:07 AM, Dave Swarthout <daveswarthout at gmail.com>
wrote:

> > landuse=industrial is simply
> > factually wrong because most of the land is not actually used for
> > industrial purposes.
>
> I also agree. But how best to tag such areas then?
>
> In terms of "mapping ownership", I don't think that bears on this
> conversation any more than it does when tagging an area as industrial based
> on satellite imagery. The area is reserved for some future use related to
> the extraction of oil. But more to the point of my original question, how
> best to indicate that any particular industrial area (landuse=industrial)
> is *inside* the leased, and named, tract?
>
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 7:23 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <
> dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2017-10-16 14:05 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de>:
>>
>>> On Monday 16 October 2017, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I think we don't map individual land ownership or land use rights
>>> > because of privacy concerns [...]
>>>
>>> No, we don't map land ownership because it is usually not verifiable
>>> which is partly due to privacy concerns from side of the cadastral
>>> legislations.  In Germany for example land ownership records are not
>>> public, they may only be viewed by parties with a justified interest.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> if it isn't verifiable there's no question, but if it is verifiable
>> because the border or its description was published (not the case here
>> according to Dave), then we could map it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> This is of no relevance here of course, landuse=industrial is simply
>>> factually wrong because most of the land is not actually used for
>>> industrial purposes.
>>
>>
>>
>> +1, I agree, although landuse isn't perfectly defined on a formal level
>> to exclude such tagging (e.g. by using vocabulary like "primary use of
>> land", which wouldn't make it wrong here).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
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/20171020/2e88f365/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list