[OSM-talk] disputed territories
osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk
Fri Dec 14 12:37:30 GMT 2007
On 14/12/2007, Tony Bowden <tony at tmtm.com> wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
> > :-P Better suggestions for wording welcomed. "Up to the level of a
> > national government"?
> This seems a little weird, possibly as it's the opposite of the 'normal'
> default, which is to prefer the smaller scope to the larger (e.g. North
Government power works in both directions. The UK government gets to
control the UK, and gets to control it by delegating powers to other
bodies if it so chooses, whether "upwards" to the EU, or downwards to
local councils etc. The body with effective control is the one that is
in charge of such naming in that area... you can't clarify it by
trying to impose some sort of governmental structure as that won't
> > I think what we want to capture is that the competency of the EU does
> > not (yet) extend to being able to make binding statements about what a
> > particular town or region should be called.
> It's been a while since I studied EC law, and I'm far from expert on the
> subject, but I don't see why, in theory, the EU couldn't do that. In
> practice it would likely cause an outcry, etc, but AIUI the EU could
> merrily issue a directive forcing countries to ensure that, for example,
> no local city, town or village can have the same name as any other EU
> country's capital city.
I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that if you're talking effective
control, the people on the ground would probably have it in this
case... but it makes a great April Fool's joke so I'm not complaining.
More information about the talk