<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 27/11/2018 23:01, Joseph Eisenberg
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP_2vPj1Z+hk1P3aathwLQHuh_cvrs_R08BVkbuQzgg5CkxHfg@mail.gmail.com">This
proposal has several problems:<br>
1) Too many new relations, up to 180 per border or whatever the
number of independent states has reached.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It's a concern (I've made similar points about languages in the
past) but in this case I don't think that there will be _that_ many
new border relations. To take Ukraine as an example, there will
only I suspect be one extra relation, with a very large number of
"according_to:XX" tags as almost everyone supports Ukraine's border
claim, but it doesn't match the current line of control. You might
get up to a dozen in some areas (perhaps around the South China Sea,
also UK with or without Chagos Archipelago, Falklands, Gibraltar
etc.), but I suspect not many more than that.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP_2vPj1Z+hk1P3aathwLQHuh_cvrs_R08BVkbuQzgg5CkxHfg@mail.gmail.com"><br>
2) OSM is for “real, current” data<br>
- Claimed borders are not real.<br>
- Many old claims have never been officially surrendered<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It's true that verifiability is an issue here (the problems with
some historic claims were mentioned in a previous thread) but in
many cases there really isn't an argument about _where_ the border
is, only _what_ the status of the thing within it has, and (taking
Ukraine as an example again) I'd suggest that the statement "Ukraine
claims that Crimea is part of Ukraine" is very verifiable.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP_2vPj1Z+hk1P3aathwLQHuh_cvrs_R08BVkbuQzgg5CkxHfg@mail.gmail.com"><br>
3) “Don’t map your local legislation”<br>
- legislation in country X has no jurisdiction in country Y<br>
</blockquote>
Where the wiki says "Don't map your local legislation" it's again
just making a point about verifiability. "legislation in country X
has no jurisdiction in country Y" doesn't seem to exist in the OSM
wiki at all; so I guess that you're just saying that _only_ de facto
boundaries should be in OSM? That's nearly where we are now, except
that we do have a border for e.g. Western Sahara, and attempts have
been made to map the claims between India, China and Pakistan (but
not currently the resulting claimed country borders).<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAP_2vPj1Z+hk1P3aathwLQHuh_cvrs_R08BVkbuQzgg5CkxHfg@mail.gmail.com">On
Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:43 AM Rory McCann <<a
href="mailto:rory@technomancy.org" moz-do-not-send="true">rory@technomancy.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">This is my
suggestion for how to map disputed/claimed borders.<br>
<a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ClaimedBorders"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ClaimedBorders</a>
<br>
(but I appear to have broken the wiki).<br>
(text snipped)<br>
== Examples ==<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Just a thought - how about uploading some examples as a test to the
dev server (or elsewhere) to allow people to experiment with the
data? It's often easier to see potential problems once you're
actually trying to process the data rather than in the abstract.<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
<br>
Andy<br>
</body>
</html>