[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries

[Johnparis]

After looking at the feedback, I have had a major realization that I think
makes the proposal much more viable while not adding innumerable new
relations.

Please see:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries#.22Disputed_Area.22_and_.22Zone_of_Control.22

Briefly, the idea is to divide the world into Disputed Areas (with possible
subareas of Zones of Control), along with the notion of a "Lesser
(countryname)" which can be thought of as a rump version of the country
minus all its disputed areas.

So, specifically in the case of Crimea, you would have:

Disputed Area: Crimea
claimed_by: RU;UA
acceptance:claim:FR=UA
acceptance:claim:PK=neutral
acceptance:claim:AF=RU
...etc...

Zones of Control: 1
Zone #1
controlled_by=RU

The referenced link goes into more detail and provides a simple algorithm
for creating maps of the world from different points of view.

John



On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:20 PM Johnparis <okosm at johnfreed.com> wrote:

> Thank you for that reference, Marc.
>
> The blog post you cite deals with the policy and how it is enforced, not
> with the question of physical control. The blog acknowledges that Russia
> has physical control.
>
> Let me be clear: this proposal makes NO CHANGES in the existing policy
> regarding de facto borders, and makes NO CHANGES in how that policy is
> implemented (other than to explicitly tag borders where OSMF has made a
> ruling).
>
> Discussions of the existing policy and its enforcement are therefore not
> on topic. I personally have issues with the policy (it has led to, shall we
> say, rather "unique" maps in many parts of the world), but those are
> properly directed at the OSMF and the DWG. They are not relevant to this
> proposal.
>
> This proposal offers a mechanism, if you will, for the "losing side" in a
> ruling by the OSMF to "have its say" on the map. It does not absolve OSMF
> from its role in making a ruling.
>
> The proposal works regardless of how OSMF decides to enforce (or change)
> its policy. Hypothetically, OSMF could decide that henceforth, all de facto
> borders will be taken from the 1923 Atlas of the World by Encyclopaedia
> Britannica. (That would lift one burden from them!) This proposal would
> remain the same.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:20 AM Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:06 AM Johnparis <okosm at johnfreed.com> wrote:\
>>
>> > The question of "physical control" is, I believe, not at issue. The
>> fact that Russia exercises physical control is precisely what Ukraine
>> objects to. So both sides agree that Russia has physical control of
>> Ukraine. But if there were a dispute, again from the proposal: Disputes
>> about which claiming entity, if any, exercises control over a particular
>> territory can be resolved by the OSM Institutions (meaning the OSMF or the
>> DWG). The criterion of "most widely internationally recognised", and how it
>> might conflict with the criterion of "best meets realities on the ground",
>> is at issue. So the de facto situation remains one that the OSM
>> Institutions would have to resolve. When resolved, the de facto border
>> would get the "boundary:status=osm_designated" tag, which essentially makes
>> it "not subject to change" (by ordinary mappers, anyway).
>>
>> From https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Kilkenni/diary/47017#comment43421
>> I understand that the notion using  "physical control" to define the
>> border is the problem.
>>
>> m.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20181128/8d1c07c4/attachment.html>