[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries
okosm at johnfreed.com
Wed Nov 28 09:58:02 UTC 2018
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
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
Zones of Control: 1
The referenced link goes into more detail and provides a simple algorithm
for creating maps of the world from different points of view.
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
> 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
> 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.
> 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.
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging