[Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders
Eugene Alvin Villar
seav80 at gmail.com
Tue Nov 13 00:51:34 UTC 2018
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 9:23 PM Noémie Lehuby <n.lehuby at qwant.com> wrote:
> 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...
My thinking on this is we should re-purpose the relation roles for this
sort of tagging. Right now we just copy the roles from type=multipolygon
relations (inner, outer) when we should be using something like the
Hypothetical but real-life example:
Country A and Country B are disputing Territory C but currently Country A
- The borders (ways) between A and B that are not in dispute should be
tagged with role=de_jure in both countries' boundary relations
- The line of control (so the border between B and C) should be tagged with
role=de_facto in both countries' boundary relations.
- The claimed border of B (so the "border" between A and C) should be
tagged with role=claimed in Country B's relation.
So if you want to draw borders as we currently draw them in OSM, just
pick-up the de_jure and de_facto role ways in the relations to build up the
But if you're from Country B and you want your claimed borders, just
pick-up the de_jure and claimed role ways in the relations to build up
Country B's boundary polygon.
The point is, "inner" and "outer" are really superfluous and can be
inferred from the geometry itself. So we should be using the relation role
to tag these sorts of things. And we can even use it to tag even more
complicated situations like if Territory C is split in control between A
I am open to alternatives to my suggested role names, by the way
("de_jure", "de_facto", "claimed").
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging