<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>"international recognition" allows to eliminate for example Sealand (and other</div><div>micronation nonsense).</div><div><br /></div><div>It also allows to skip on the ground survey in cases where everybody agrees where the border are.</div><div><br /></div><div>It also allows to map borders in areas without physical control (due to lack of inhabitants or</div><div>anything else).<br /></div><br />24. Nov 2018 14:58 by <a href="mailto:pavlo.dudka@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">pavlo.dudka@gmail.com</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><div><div><div>boundary=administrative can't be "IRRESPECTIVE OF WIDE INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION" by definition. Please check it on <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative&oldid=1697927" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">OSM wiki</a>: "An administrative boundary. Subdivisions of
areas/territories/jurisdictions recognised by governments or other
organisations for administrative purposes."</div><div>OSMF statement also says "we record one set that, in OpenStreetMap contributor opinion, is most widely internationally recognised and best meets realities on the ground, generally meaning physical control.". The first sentence also says to take international recognition into account, while second part make the whole statement
<span id="gmail-result_box" class="gmail-short_text" lang="en"><span class="gmail-">self-contradictory</span></span>.</div></div></div></div><br /><div class="gmail_quote"><div>пт, 23 лист. 2018 о 23:06 Tomas Straupis <<a href="mailto:tomasstraupis@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">tomasstraupis@gmail.com</a>> пише:<br /></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 0.8ex ; border-left: 1px #ccc solid ; padding-left: 1ex">2018-11-23, pn, 18:57 Andy Townsend rašė:<br />
> Where that best matches the situation on the ground about who has<br />
> control, yes.<br />
<br />
Ok. So do I understand OSMF position is this:<br />
<br />
1. There are no technical problems with having international<br />
boundaries overlapping and representing official position of involved<br />
countries.<br />
2. International boundaries DO sometimes overlap.<br />
3. OSMF is aware that overlapping boundaries would have satisfied<br />
more users (especially LOCAL users).<br />
4. Precedence is taken by "most widely internationally recognised<br />
and best meets realities on the ground" where only second part is<br />
actually important, so this sentence should be changed to "best meets<br />
realities on the ground IRRESPECTIVE OF WIDE INTERNATIONAL<br />
RECOGNITION".<br />
<br />
Is this correct?<br />
<br />
_______________________________________________<br />
talk mailing list<br />
<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br />
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br />
</blockquote></div></blockquote> </body>
</html>