[Tagging] Related: Antarctic territories
ohrosm at gmail.com
Mon Dec 23 21:29:41 UTC 2013
First of all I think there is no really perfect solution to the problem. To
me this is inherent to the dispute as different parties have a different
view of what's right and wrong. So I think this conflict will show up in
the data anyway.
2013/12/23 Fernando Trebien <fernando.trebien at gmail.com>
> Today, from a practical perspective, a letter to anyone in Abyei would
> probably be addressed to Sudan, a phone call would dial Sudan's area
> code, a visitor would go through Sudanese immigration. So maybe it's
> in Sudan.
> Maybe it's part of both countries then. In that case, tools like
> Nominatim should reflect that - but Nominatim currently thinks that
> Abyei is in South Sudan (possibly making some non-technical Sudanese
> users a bit uneasy).
Ok, but I am personally quite hesitant to tag things in a way so Nominatim
gets correct results. After some checking with places in Israel and the
Palestinian territories I think Nominatim might not be the best benchmark
> Overlapping administrative borders should then be
> a basic assumption of every app - and they're not, since they almost
> always are administrative "subdivisions". An overlapping
> administrative border of equal admin_level would make more sense if
> both parties were friendly to each other and collaborating within the
> area. But then I think nobody would describe these as "disputed"
I do not consider adding the region to both countries to be a great
solution myself. It's just an pragmatic approach to get things covered
'good enough'. Ideally the disputed borders were marked as disputed and
rendered accordingly e.g. dashed instead of solid. Or event the disputed
area could even be hatched or so.
> But is the area faring independently? No, so we represent the claim
> conflict using the "claimed" role in each country's defining relation.
If we add 'controlled' or 'dejure' and 'defacto' this sounds good to me: So
the northern border of Abyei should be 'dejure' in Sudan and the southern
border 'defacto'. The South Sudan should have things just the other way (if
I got the legal situation right). Basically there is a section where the
border of both countries is not really well defined and for me the data
should reflect this.
> Extending that to Antarctica, one may ask: are the overlapping
> territories claimed by Argentina, Chile and UK part of any of these?
I agree that for Antarctica my strategy of being part of both definetly
does not work. This is different and probably needs special treatment.
When working on the border beween Sudan and South Sudan I spent some time
looking into disputed borders. Some key observations for me were that (1)
there are more than one would expect and (2) there currently is no
established method of handling this in OSM. So I am happy if we find a
better solution but I guess this easily requires changes to some other
tools like the rendering or perhaps Nominatim. But this shouldn't keep us
from looking into it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging