[Tagging] Disputed area
Eugene Alvin Villar
seav80 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 22 10:35:16 UTC 2015
But that proposal intends to encircle disputed territories which is
different from specifying disputed parts of otherwise OK boundaries in
a normal boundary relation.
I have already considered the impact on current tools and my solution
is to introduce a new relation type: boundary=administrative_v2.
My idea is that by only getting the boundary relation for India, for
example, you are able to create a map similar to the following
(imagine without the state borders):
On 7/22/15, Arch Arch <7h3.arch at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it would be better to create separate relations for disputed
> territories instead of introducing new roles. Your approach would break
> many existing applications.
> There's already a proposal:
> Am 21.07.2015 um 16:12 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar:
>> My idea is to replace the use of 'inner', 'outer' (and the deprecated
>> 'exclave', and 'enclave') roles in a type=boundary relation with
>> 'defacto' and 'dejure' (or 'claimed') roles. The 'inner' and 'outer'
>> roles are very trivial to compute (assuming a relation is properly
>> constructed) and are actually redundant information.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging