[Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders
61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Nov 26 09:49:25 UTC 2018
On 26/11/18 20:32, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar <seav80 at gmail.com
> <mailto:seav80 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a
> type=boundary relation to store information about claimed, "de
> facto", and "de jure" borders
> can you give a definition for de jure?
> Which law applies?
> Maybe there is a better word or phrase than "de jure" but I would
> classify these as borders where both countries are in agreement
> because of a treaty or a similar legal document. For example, this
> role could be applied to more than 99% of the Canada-United States
> border (there are still some minor disputes between the two).
Each country has its own boundary relation.
For example? No conflict. ;
Canada could have a boundary relation using way 666 as an outer.
USA could have a different boundary relation using the same way 666 as
The source may need to be stated ... I'd opt to put it on the way - to
help stop people moving it.
Canada could have a boundary relation using way 667 as an outer.
USA could have a different boundary relation using way 668 as an outer.
These two may 'trespass' over each other.
Why is it required for OSM to state the cause of this problem?
OSM could simply indicate the opinions of where the boundary 'is' from
This would then leave the render the problem of what to do.
Where the two boundaries use the same way - simple - no problem.
Where they differ? The choices are then available and could be left to
the renders rather than OSM?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging