Okay, I know the rules about mechanical edits and I'm prepared to simply let these tags stay the way they are but there are 304 instances of an obviously misspelled tag I would like to fix. I'm mapping some oil fields and checking out the various possibilities for tagging objects related to oil production and came across this tag combination:

industrisl=well_site

I've contacted the mapper and he admits to the mistake — he wanted to use "industrial" instead of "industrisl" but a slip of the finger caused the error. He asked me to go ahead and fix them. I'm guessing he applied these tags by some sort of automatic process, otherwise I'm unable to explain the large number of mis-tagged objects.

I think perhaps he meant to use industrial=well_site but I didn't ask and that's another whole issue anyway.

So, leaving aside the question of whether industrial=wellsite is the best one for the job, what should be done? I'm not willing to edit each one of these individually so I'm looking for some sort of agreement that will allow me to correct them using JOSM or level0. I'm not going to write a proposal to justify this edit and if that's what's required to obtain a go ahead, I'll simply forget about it.

Thoughts, opinions?

Dave

asked 30 Nov '17, 11:40

AlaskaDave's gravatar image

AlaskaDave
3.9k7093141
accept rate: 12%

edited 30 Nov '17, 11:49


If there's over 100 instances of an obviously misspelled tag it's often an indication of an undiscussd import (since the misspelling would have baan picked up had it been properly discussed!).

However in this case (see e.g. here) it's likely just a copy and paste faux pas that got a bit out of hand - the area is visible on imagery and there's also a "industrial=wellsite" tag as well.

Personally, I've used an example of changing "highway=pirmary" to "highway=primary" as something that doesn't need extensive discussion prior to change; here the fact that "industrisl" is wrong doesn't need discussion but "what to" perhaps does. Taginfo suggests both "oil" and "wellsite"; here it might need a bit of discussion about what these sites actually are and what part they play in the gas fracking / extraction process.

permanent link

answered 30 Nov '17, 12:19

SomeoneElse's gravatar image

SomeoneElse ♦
32.1k63332751
accept rate: 15%

Agreed, he was apparently trying to cover all the cases. The tagging for these features is a bit of a mess, which I'm guessing is why he tried to use both of these tags. Adding to the confusion, there is also a landuse=wellsite. At any rate, he wanted to use these tags:

industrial=wellsite and

industrial=well_site

Reiterating, I'm not asking about which of those is more proper because, as far as I'm concerned, they can both be used until one or the other becomes the accepted standard. My primary concern here is to fix the obvious misspellings, not to decide upon a more proper tag or tags.

Thanks for your interest,

Dave

(30 Nov '17, 12:40) AlaskaDave
(30 Nov '17, 12:43) SomeoneElse ♦

Most of the sites tagged are gas wells not petroleum wells. Perhaps the best approach is simply to remove the "industrisl" tag altogether.

(30 Nov '17, 12:49) AlaskaDave

I'd definitely do that - you'd not be removing any information from OSM by doing so.

(30 Nov '17, 13:04) SomeoneElse ♦

Appreciate the feedback.

Thanks.

(30 Nov '17, 13:25) AlaskaDave
Your answer
toggle preview

Follow this question

By Email:

Once you sign in you will be able to subscribe for any updates here

By RSS:

Answers

Answers and Comments

Markdown Basics

  • *italic* or _italic_
  • **bold** or __bold__
  • link:[text](http://url.com/ "title")
  • image?![alt text](/path/img.jpg "title")
  • numbered list: 1. Foo 2. Bar
  • to add a line break simply add two spaces to where you would like the new line to be.
  • basic HTML tags are also supported

Question tags:

×8
×1

question asked: 30 Nov '17, 11:40

question was seen: 624 times

last updated: 30 Nov '17, 13:25

powered by OSQA