2017-10-15 15:46 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de>: > 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).
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. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging