[Tagging] Related: Antarctic territories

Fernando Trebien fernando.trebien at gmail.com
Mon Dec 23 16:43:06 UTC 2013


Or, disputed territories wouldn't even have an admin_level tag and
would be mapped as regions (which always seemed to me as a generic
"fallback" for things that do not fit a specific standard):
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dregion

The boundary lines would still need boundary=* for proper rendering.
We could simply use boundary=administrative for compatibility with
current renderers. boundary=political seems to be used for something
quite different, but we may consider expanding it to include these
territories.

On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Fernando Trebien
<fernando.trebien at gmail.com> wrote:
> I gave it some more thought and I think it may be best for the
> community to abstain from such disputes (otherwise we would be dragged
> into them). The fact that we refer to them in a special way
> linguistically (calling them "disputed territories" or "territorial
> claims") means to me that they probably should be mapped in some
> special way, and not forcibly fitted into other definitions. Such
> controversial issues would likely be solved faster by voting than by
> subjective fuzzy logic. We could vote if we're going to follow UN
> definitions, some other definition, or vote for each particular case
> (which may involve a lot of discussion).
>
> Surely resorting to UN's definitions would be much faster, but not
> less controversial. Perhaps we could be conservative, including in the
> country itself only the area that is not disputed, then mapping
> disputed areas as admin_level=2 entities (as if they were independent)
> also adding disputed=yes, and then create a special membership role
> (such as "claimed") and use it to add the disputed areas (which may be
> relations themselves) to the relations representing the involved
> countries.
>
> On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Jonathan <bigfatfrog67 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am not qualified to answer any of these questions as I've never got
>> involved in editing boundaries in OSM however it does raise an interesting
>> wider question, which is, how do we map all territories that are claimed by
>> one country or another but not internationally recognised?
>>
>> Some territories are officially recognised by the UN as being under dispute
>> but then there are others where the UN recognise one nations claim over
>> another's but it has never been enforced. First example that springs to mind
>> is the land that Israel has taken from the Palestinians and the UN demand
>> that Israel roles back it's current borders.  Do we map what is on the
>> ground, which seems to be the common argument, or do we map what is widely
>> recognised as the official situation?
>>
>> Sorry for not proffering any answers but more questions ;-)
>>
>> Jonathan
>>
>> http://bigfatfrog67.me
>>
>>
>> On 23/12/2013 04:33, Fernando Trebien wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if I should post this question here. If not, please point
>>> me in a better direction.
>>>
>>> I was optimizing some boundaries in Antarctica and then realized some
>>> countries had included as part of their country borders their claimed
>>> territories in Antarctica, namely: Australia, Norway and Argentina.
>>>
>>> Now, the Antarctic Treaty
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty) does not state that
>>> these countries have actual jurisdiction nor sovereignty over these
>>> areas (it does not deny it also). Additionally, the wiki says that,
>>> for clarity, a country in OSM should be equivalent to an ISO-3166
>>> entity (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#National).
>>>
>>> None of Antartica's claimed territories are ISO-3166 entities (so
>>> they're not countries and are probably part of other countries - so
>>> far so good), but Antartica is, so Antarctica is a country in OSM - a
>>> strange one whose subdivisions do not belong to itself (but that's ok
>>> in theory). Oddity aside, I wouldn't worry about adding Chile's and
>>> NZ's territories to their countries, but if I added UK's, then it
>>> naturally follows that we also would have to add all other British
>>> overseas territories to UK - but we can't, because most of them are
>>> ISO-3166 entities, therefore, countries.
>>>
>>> So how do we solve this conundrum fairly? Should we...
>>> - add the claimed territories to the respective countries, except UK?
>>> - add all claimed territories, but no UK overseas territories besides
>>> the Antarctic one?
>>> - override the ISO-3166 rule and add overseas territories to UK?
>>> - remove claimed territories from the borders of Australia, Norway and
>>> Argentina, and perhaps create relations for overseas territories of
>>> each of these countries, like they apparently do in France
>>> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2186658)?
>>>
>>> I think the last solution may be superior because:
>>> - AFAIK no treaty gives sovereignty/jurisdiction/special rights to any
>>> of the claiming countries over any of these claimed territories
>>> - less confusing (it always seems weird to create exceptions on
>>> established patterns), particularly because:
>>> --- I believe almost nobody thinks of those territories when thinking
>>> of the claiming countries; and
>>> --- I think a letter sent to any of these territories wouldn't
>>> normally be addressed to Norway, Argentina or Australia
>>> - consequently, it may help to avoid future edit wars
>>>
>>> It may, however, create problems to applications that assume that
>>> these areas are states/provinces/etc. of their respective countries.
>>> On the other hand, I believe that the impact would be minimal and that
>>> many other common things in OSM force programmers to create exceptions
>>> in their code more often.
>>>
>>> What do you think? Am I missing something fundamental?
>>>
>>> I know I'm meddling in other nations business, but I'm curious since I
>>> stumbled upon the problem.
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
>
> --
> Fernando Trebien
> +55 (51) 9962-5409
>
> "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
> "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)



-- 
Fernando Trebien
+55 (51) 9962-5409

"The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law)
"The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law)



More information about the Tagging mailing list