[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.3)

Johnparis okosm at johnfreed.com
Sat Dec 8 13:54:26 UTC 2018


Thanks, Andy. I replied to some of your comments (which I also copied to
the proposal's discussion page).

So far as I know you're the first to publicly question the use of land
boundaries, but as I fully believe in Keep It Simple, I'm happy to do that.
It's not a major change, though I will probably do it as a version 1.4 and
redo the examples. I can also do a ChangeLog for the proposal, though I
really have pretty much discarded the earlier ones. I'll wait a bit to see
if there are other comments on version 1.3, then dive in.

Briefly, without seeing at least one example for the other proposal, I
don't think it's reasonable to assume it will be easier to implement. It is
essentially an extension of my proposal (views of third parties on claims),
but without the modularity introduced by the zones of control.

As for implementing my proposal, I believe I could create all the relations
in a couple of weeks, tops. It took me a couple of hours for
Israel-Palestine, for instance -- and that was on the dev server, where I
had to download and reupload all the relations. So I think I've
demonstrated that my proposal is pretty easy to implement. For any
countries with no active disputes, there's no change needed at all.

Since the nature of the disputes rarely changes (most have been "frozen"
for some time), there really aren't maintenance issues. By contrast, for
the other proposal, the third party views do change, so there is a
maintenance issue there (or for any extension that wants to include those).
Not to mention the separate issue of verifiability of the third-party
views.

And for "hot" disputes, where the boundaries do in fact change, my proposal
would require changing the boundaries of the affected zones of control
(usually two) and regenerating the De Facto Boundary for the two countries
(two, for a total of four including the zones of control). And I note that
even with the current map, the de facto boundary would need to be changed
(revising two relations), so from a maintenance standpoint my proposal is
essentially the same as what we have now. The other proposal would require
changes in all the relations affecting each of the two countries.

Ease of use? I don't see how it can be simpler than to call up "Master
Boundary India" to see India's view of itself. The pre-built relations
include every country's self-view.

Cheers,
John





On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 11:42 AM Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 05/12/2018 18:52, Johnparis wrote:
> > I have just posted another revised version of my proposal on mapping
> > disputed boundaries.
> >
> > It greatly simplifies the tagging and relation structure.
>
> One thing that would be really helpful would be to summarise those
> changes somewhere.  There's a whole page at the top of
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries
> devoted to contents; nothing there suggests what has changed.  The
> difference between 1.2 and now
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features%2FMapping_disputed_boundaries&type=revision&diff=1704857&oldid=1702873
> doesn't really help, except to show that the tagging has moved somewhat
> away from a "rewrite of all OSM boundaries" towards at least some of the
> tagging that we have now.
>
>
> >
> > Thanks to everyone who gave public and private feedback. I've archived
> > some of the comments that are no longer applicable.
> >
> > The proposal is here:
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries
>
>
> Thanks also for adding the
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/ClaimedBorders#Comparison_with_other_proposal
> section to the other proposal.  I've commented there why I think
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ClaimedBorders is
> probably easier to implement, easier to use, and easier to maintain than
> this one, but there is still some useful detail here - not least the
> definitions, including things like "Claiming Entity"
>
> Arguably the biggest difference between the two proposals (and between
> yours and what OSM does now) is that your proposal talks only about land
> areas - I suspect that that will make yours difficult to implement at
> all; and (as many people have said) we definitely need a solution here.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181208/7b04b98d/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list