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 <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Dave Swarthout Homer, Alaska Chiang Mai, Thailand Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
