<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br />22. Oct 2018 16:17 by <a href="mailto:dieterdreist@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">dieterdreist@gmail.com</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Am Mo., 22. Okt. 2018 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Yuri Astrakhan <<a href="mailto:yuriastrakhan@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">yuriastrakhan@gmail.com</a>>:<br /><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 0.8ex ; border-left: 1px #ccc solid ; padding-left: 1ex"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <<a href="mailto:matkoniecz@tutanota.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">matkoniecz@tutanota.com</a>> wrote:<br /></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 0.8ex ; border-left: 1px #ccc solid ; padding-left: 1ex">
<div><blockquote class="m_-3904653812932589571m_-6392276033010924189tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93a3b8 ; padding-left: 10px ; margin-left: 5px"><div>I
think a country relation should describe how the specific country think
of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two
relations will overlap.</div></blockquote><p>That is absurd and conflict with OSM rule to map what exists. <br /></p></div></blockquote><div>On
the contrary, it actually matches OSM rules better than deciding
yourself. When drawing a city outline, you go to that city's
government, and get the geoshape from them. By extension, if you draw a
country, you should use that country's definition. If two country's
definitions happen to overlap, we ought to document both.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>In
principle I agree it would be desirable to keep records of "all" claims
for a territory, (I can imagine there will be some more rules required,
because there are even small groups and individuals claiming authority
over territories with very low possibility to be recognized by anyone
else, and we might want to exclude those "trolls"). But this should not
mean that we do not keep information about who actually controls the
territory, and who has claims on it but does not control it. Simply
adding a territory to 2 countries at the same time can't be the
solution.</div></div></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>I am not fundamentally opposed to adding various claims to OSM (though I am not</p><p>supporting it either).</p><p><br /></p><p>But in cases where there is clear who controls given territory main border then <br /></p><p>main administrative boundary should be applied to line of control. <br /></p> </body>
</html>