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
> 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
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
2017-10-15 15:46 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann :
> 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
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
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
2017-10-15 15:14 GMT+02:00 Dave Swarthout :
> 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
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?
Also, someone suggested tagging the wellsite with
Hi
Additionnaly, it's recommended to use dedicated tag instead of industrial=*
(or as general man_made)
Eg. power substation are mapped as power=substation and not
industrial=substation
oil=wellsite sounds great
Think about using man_made=pipeline + substance=oil to link wellsites to
processing
On Sunday 15 October 2017, Dave Swarthout wrote:
> I'm trying to determine the ideal tagging scenario for the many oil
> fields in the State of Alaska. The areas, which are large tracts of
> land leased from the State of Alaska, are typically very large
> (50-100 sq miles) and are mostly empty
>Martin wrote: I’d use man_made for the wellsite, as it’s a „feature“
Since I sent that post I was leaning that way also, except now I'm not sure
the Alpine Central Facility is actually a wellsite after all. AFAIK, It is
an aggregator for many small pipelines and I believe it pressurizes and
sent from a phone
> On 15. Oct 2017, at 04:39, Dave Swarthout wrote:
>
> So, inside this leased tract are oil well sites, (one of which is here:
> 70.4189462, -150.9128577) and a larger pumping/aggregating site known as the
> Alpine Central Facility (70.3445186,
I'm trying to determine the ideal tagging scenario for the many oil fields
in the State of Alaska. The areas, which are large tracts of land leased
from the State of Alaska, are typically very large (50-100 sq miles) and
are mostly empty except for a few installations containing wellsites or
13 matches
Mail list logo