[Tagging] My proposal for disputed country borders

[Rory McCann]

(Some of this is on the wiki)

On 28/11/2018 06:39, Johnparis wrote:
> I don't think the notion of "according_to" is viable unless it is 
> restricted to the two disputing parties. (Three-way disputes can be 
> simplified into three two-way disputes.)

This is why I like according_to:XX=yes/no. It allows for many options, 
not just 2.

> I'll also look at your proposed tag (boundary=claimed_administrative) 
> vs. my proposed tag (boundary_claim=administrative). Not sure whether 
> there's any significant difference in implementation, but would like 
> your thoughts on that.

boundary=claimed_administrative say "this is a boundary and it's of this 
type".

> I plan to rethink my proposal along these lines. One problem I now see 
> with my examples, for instance, is that it provides relations for SADR 
> (de facto and claimed) and MA (de facto and claimed), but not MA as seen 
> by SADR. So you can't draw a global map from these relations from the 
> viewpoint of SADR and its supporters. (You can do one from the viewpoint 
> of MA, because SADR doesn't exist in that world, but that's a special case.)

I suspect "Country X thinks country Y doesn't really exist" is very 
common, surely it must happen when a region secedes. I suspect Turkish 
Republic of North Cyprus doesn't exist as a country according to Cyprus 
or Italy, or.... Taiwan isn't a separate country according to China. 
Kosovo isn't a separate country according to Serbia. etc. 
"according_to:XX=no" can be useful here.

> Finally, is there some reason you want to create a competing proposal? I 
> don't have any knowledge of two competing proposals being discussed at 
> the same time; would they be followed by two votes? I thought the idea 
> was to reach consensus.

Yes this can appear a little snarky, that's not my intent. I half 
heartely suggested this idea 2 years ago ( 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2016-May/029211.html 
), but abandoned it.

As you know, recent events mean OSM should have an answer to this. We'll 
talk and discuss and surely we can come to consensus.