[Tagging] Disputed area

Warin 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

source= ?

That does simply state the source of the information... why add another tag that does the same thing?

More information about the Tagging mailing list