[Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Mon Nov 12 14:34:53 UTC 2018


I'm not a big fan of doing this.

There are only a very small number of countries, maybe none, that don't
have any sections of their borders that are disputed. While it can be
argued that moving away from our de facto area of control model allows
to reflect reality better, it also makes the borders essentially
unusable without making ~200 x "average number of border disputes"
decisions to get to a consistent set of border polygons (which is what
people want in the end).

Simon 

Am 12.11.2018 um 14:32 schrieb marc marc:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20181112/791adf10/attachment.sig>


More information about the Tagging mailing list