[Tagging] My proposal for disputed country borders

[Joseph Eisenberg]

This proposal has several problems:
1) Too many new relations, up to 180 per border or whatever the number of
independent states has reached.

2) OSM is for “real, current” data
- Claimed borders are not real.
- Many old claims have never been officially surrendered

3) “Don’t map your local legislation”
- legislation in country X has no jurisdiction in country Y

These last two points are in the good mapping practice wiki page and 2) is
on the main page for new mappers
On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:43 AM Rory McCann <rory at technomancy.org> wrote:

> This is my suggestion for how to map disputed/claimed borders.
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ClaimedBorders
> (but I appear to have broken the wiki).
>
> This proposal is simple. Map the claimed border of a country according
> to another country as another regular {{Tag|type|boundary}} relation,
> but add {{Tag|boundary|claimed_administrative}} +
> {{Tag|claimed:admin_level||2}} (since we're nearly always dealing with
> countries) Add the regular tags for a boundary relation (e.g.
> {{Tag|ISO3166-1}}, {{Tag|name}}).
>
> Then add {{Tag|according_to:XX||yes/no}} for each country that does or
> doesn't claims this is the border of the subject country. If
> {{Tag|according_to:XX}} is missing for an object, the value should be
> assumed to be "yes" if this is {{Tag|boundary|administrative}}, and "no"
> if it's {{Tag|boundary|claimed_administrative}}.
>
> == Examples ==
>
> === Kosovo ===
>
> {{Wikipedia|en|Kosovo|text=no}} has been
> {{Wikipedia|en|
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Kosovo
>   }} recognised by about half the members of the UN, since it is de
> facto  acting as a country, it's mapped in OSM {{relation|2088990}}, as
> {{Tag|boundary|administative}}+{{Tag|admin_level||2}}. Kosovo was part
> of Serbia, which is {{relation|1741311}}, and also
> {{Tag|boundary|administative}}+{{Tag|admin_level||2}}. Serbia & Spain
> don't recognise Kosovo, so I presume they view the border of "Serbia" to
> be the land covered by {{relation|2088990}}+{{relation|1741311}}. We can
> map this by copying the Serbia relation ({{relation|1741311}}), and
> changing the members to include the larger area, then add
>
> {{Tag|type|boundary}}+{{Tag|boundary|claimed_administrative}}+{{Tag|claimed:admin_level||2}}+{{Tag|ISO3166-1||RS}}+{{Tag|according_to:RS||yes}}+{{Tag|according_to:ES||yes}}.
>
> We can add {{Tag|according_to:XK||yes}} to the Kosovo relation, since
> (IIRC) the de facto border is what the government there claims as the
> border. We can add {{Tag|according_to:RS||no}} to the Serbia relation,
> which means "This is the de facto border of Serbia, and they claim it's
> not the border, and the UK claims it is, and Mexico claims it isn't".
>
> === Crimea ===
>
> Left as an exercise for the reader.
>
> === Kashmir ===
>
> (Correct me if I'm wrong) {{Wikipedia|en|Kashmir conflict}} is mostly a
> dispute between India and Pakistan, but China has claims on some parts.
> Neither India or Pakistan control all of what they claim. (i) The de
> facto border of India, (ii) The de facto border of Pakistan (current OSM
> countries), (iii) The borders of India according to India, (iv) The
> borders of Pakistan accroding to India, (v) The borders of Pakistan
> according to Pakistan, (vi) The borders of India according to Pakistan.
>
> Each of these 6 options would be mapped with a separate relation.
>
> == Advantages ==
>
> * Copies the same logic from multipolygons, being supported by
> * 100% backwards compatible with existing scheme to map countries
> * Easily readable tags that data consumers can probably deduce.
>
> == Disadvantages ==
>
> * Creates more relations, several extra per disputed area. This could be
> unwieldy an could lead to data consistancies
>
> == Using the data ==
>
> === Rendering a Map ===
>
> To render a map of the world with the Serbian view of borders, you
> import the data with `osm2pgsql`, then run a SQL query like:
>
> DELETE FROM planet_osm_polygon WHERE boundary = 'administrative' AND
> 'admin_level'='2' AND tags->'claimed:by:RS' = 'no',
> UPDATE planet_osm_polygon SET admin_level = '2', boundary =
> 'administrative' WHERE boundary = 'claimed_administrative' AND
> 'claimed_admin_level'='2' AND tags->'claimed:by:RS' = 'yes',
>
> or an SQL VIEW could be used.
>
> (Or adjust your map style appropriately to look at the
> {{Tag|according_to:XX}} tag, with a reasonable default).
>
> === Data analysis ===
>
> With an osm2pgsql database, you can see what areas are claimed by
> country X, but not de facto controlled by it.
>
> == See also ==
>
> * [[Proposed features/Mapping disputed boundaries]]
> * [[Proposed_features/DisputedTerritories|Previous (abandoned)
> proposal]] on mapping disputed territories.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181128/03014e8e/attachment.html>