[Tagging] Related: Antarctic territories

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Fri Dec 27 10:57:37 UTC 2013


Hi,

On 27.12.2013 02:46, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> In principle, if Antarctic territories' status is said to be only
> "claimed" (as described by the Antarctic Treaty), they can't be
> considered "de facto", therefore they shouldn't currently be specified
> as members of the boundary relations of Norway, Australia and Argentina
> using an "outer" role (as they are right now), right?

I find it strange that they are but obviously at least one person
thought it would be a good idea or else they wouldn's. Is that person
"in the loop" here, or are we discussing their mapping without them knowing?

Having remote overseas bits and pieces included in a country relation
makes some things difficult. The boundary of France seems to exist twice
- once in a simple multipolygon-like boundary relation with one outer
ring for the mainland and one for Corse, which is what one would more or
less expect:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1403916

and then there's another nice hierarchical construct which is more
correct but likely less usable, which includes, through indirection, all
the overseas bits and pieces that France has accumulated over the centuries:

http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2202162

Maybe this could be the way to go for other countries too - have one
relation that for most intents and purposes is "the boundary" but have
another one that collects their various claims and overseas territories.
There's also the case of some territories technically belonging to one
country but on a 100-year lease to another country and where that other
country's law applies and so on. I guess we must make room in OSM for
those who want to model such details, without making things unusable for
the majority.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"



More information about the Tagging mailing list