[Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

marc marc marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com
Mon Nov 12 13:32:15 UTC 2018


it seems to me that there are 2 possible solutions
- put the disputed area in the type=boundary boundary+administrative 
relationship of the 2 countries and put dispute=yes on the way(s) concerned.
- put the disputed area in neither of the two relationships.
this area 'll be a mp, and thus a relation type=boundary 
boundary=disputed make sense.

it should also be ensured that it is a conflict and not simply
an unintentional inconsistency caused by unshared way
where they should have been

Le 12. 11. 18 à 14:21, Noémie Lehuby a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> Any thoughts about this ?
> 
> Should we consider the dispusted=yes tag on boundary ways as a /de 
> facto/ standard and uniformize a few borders ? Should we create a 
> proposal about this tag ?
> The borders data do not fit the doc and the statement from the 
> Foundation and are not really usable right now...
> 
> Noémie Lehuby
> Qwant Research
> 
> Le 26/10/2018 à 20:52, tagging-request at openstreetmap.org a écrit :
>> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:16:20 -0400
>> From: Yuri Astrakhan<yuriastrakhan at gmail.com>
>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>> 	<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders ?
>> Message-ID:
>> 	<CAJGfNe86+iRy5dPz6Uhdwzwr==baSBZ0qKS=vUbnacybJszTdA at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Another related issue -- maritime disputed borders. In the case of Crimea,
>> the disputed border with Russia is over water, thus not showing clearly in
>> many renderings, and over land with Ukraine, showing as a solid line - thus
>> appearing to side with the Russian interpretation.
>>
>> A while ago Paul Norman wrote osmborder tool to help with the disputed and
>> maritime border rendering [1].  His tool mostly uses disputed=yes . The big
>> problem with rendering was that multiple borders
>> (city/county/state/country) were all overlapping one on top of the other,
>> producing a solid line. Instead, when drawing there should always be just
>> one line with the lowest admin level.
>>
>> [1]:https://github.com/pnorman/osmborder
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:05 PM Noémie Lehuby<n.lehuby at qwant.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There seems to be no actual consensus on the way to map disputed borders.
>>> The statement from the Foundation
>>> <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf>
>>> recommend to map the border that "best meets realities on the ground" but
>>> it's not what is actually in our database:
>>> See for instance :
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.8481/18.8378
>>> https://framapic.org/kIvnPSllBtnv/h1J8xti7US1F.gif
>>> Both borders (according to Croatia vs according to Serbia) are mapped.
>>>
>>> The same between Soudan and South Soudan:
>>> https://framapic.org/lcWCkmek7L7i/icYVenvHzPZs.gif
>>>
>>> In some places, there are boundary=disputed or dispute=yes on the boundary
>>> ways, which is very convenient for a map-maker to know that there is a
>>> dispute on these border and that you may want to render it with a different
>>> style (or use another source).
>>> Should this practice be generalized on all disputed borders or at least
>>> submitted as a proposal ?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Noémie Lehuby
>>> Qwant Research
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 



More information about the Tagging mailing list