[Tagging] Disputed area
61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Jul 20 00:14:55 UTC 2015
On 20/07/2015 1:08 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> writes:
>> sent from a phone
>>> Am 19.07.2015 um 10:38 schrieb Eric SIBERT <courrier at eric.sibert.fr>:
>>> Any suggestion?
>> it would be nice to have a tag (or maybe relation role) to be
>> optionally put on admin boundaries which stated according to whom this
>> was the boundary. This way we could have different boundaries for the
>> same territory, each version with a reference to the country
>> advocating the version. Maybe the presence of this tag/role would also
>> be defined as declaring a dispute (i.e. it would be wrong to put it on
>> undisputed borders).
>> AFAIK, today this is already done, but in freetext (key note or
>> description) and not in a machine readable form.
> I concur. I was wondering about something perhaps a bit more
> complicated, which is to have multiple borders to denote the undisputed
> and disputed areas.
> Imagine country A on the left and B on the right.
> At far left, A and B agree that you are in A.
> Then there is a border between agreed-A and region that A and B claim.
> And then another border between the dual-claim region and area that both
> agree are in B.
> So perhaps a relation that carries the border tag with two ways as
> members. The relation would have the boundary tags, and also a disputed
> tag of some sort listing the set of countries involved in the dispute.
> Then each member way has a tag of which country (countries really, but
> only those adjacent) thinks that way is the border. We could require
> that the ways making up the relation make up a closed area,
> This could get tricky for 3-way or more situations, but it seems
> reasonably straightforward for the described case.
I'd use the tag
That does simply state the source of the information... why add another tag that does the same thing?
More information about the Tagging