[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)

Phake Nick c933103 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 4 12:41:45 UTC 2019


※ I forgot to mention a few other possible cases of disputed border, for
one of them I would use the historical dispute of Sikkim's integration into
India as an example, where most countries including India recognized the
integration of Sikkin into India and there are also no independent
government entity for Sikkim exists after such integration, however
countries like China continues to claim there should be an independent
country for Sikkim
※ Another case is that, how about an government in exile like historically
for various European countries during WWII, especially when they have
different claims on territory from existing government of the country, like
Free France vs Vichy France? (in both the situation when such government in
exile control some overseas territory and also in situation when such
government does not control any territory)

在 2019年1月4日週五 20:22,Phake Nick <c933103 at gmail.com> 寫道:

> I think there are some cases that might not be sufficiently covered by the
> current proposal and it might be a good idea to explain how they can be
> tagged in example section of the proposal if they can be represented by it:
> * Minamitorishima, where it is undoubtably a Japanese natural feature,
> however there are dispute on the nature of the island, which affect whether
> Japan is able to enjoy 200nm EEZ from the feature.
> * Southern Sakhalin and Northern/Central Kuril Islands, where it is de
> facto controlled by Russia, and Japan have already renounced their right
> there, however Japanese government insist the ownership of these
> territories are not determined yet.
> * Sub-national disputed boundaries, for instance the recent city-level
> dispute between Hong Kong and Shenzhen over the Sha Tau Kok River
> * Different active level of claims for different parties, for instance
> Republic of China (Taiwan) still haven't renounced their claim on part of
> Russian and Myanmar territories, yet it doesn't seems right to list them as
> a party in territorial dispute between China (Mainland) and other
> surrounding countries on the same level as PRC itself
> * Other different types of claim, for instance the 9-dotted lines which
> China claims "historical right" within the line
> * The proposal supported by various governments around the world to turn
> Jerusalem into a corpus separatum
> * Dispute between a national government and a sub-national entity, for
> example dispute between Somaliland and Puntland, where according to my
> understanding Somaliland is an unrecognized country while Puntland is an
> autonomous regional government that is intended to be part of Somalia.
> * Dispute between regional government and their national government, for
> instance disputed in area for Kurdish autonomous region in Afghanistan
> * Some special situation about United States - should Wake Island be
> controlled by US or UM (US Minority outlying islands)?
> * Guantanamo Bay, where the controlling country (or force) doesn't claim
> the area but continues to control it anyway
>
>
> It would be nice if the proposal can be extended to cover them.
>
> Also, among the existing list of example, for Shebaa Farms, the
> claimed_by=* should also include Syria. For Israel-Palestine dispute, it
> should also separately list out Area A/B/C for West Bank as each of them
> have different status.
>
> 在 2019年1月2日週三 16:18,Johnparis <okosm at johnfreed.com> 寫道:
>
>> I have just posted version 1.6 of my proposal on mapping disputed
>> boundaries. It tightens the definition of the "controlled by" tag in an
>> effort to improve verifiability.
>>
>> *Changelog*
>>
>>    - *Version 1.6*
>>       - Defining terms for "controlled_by" tag to improve verifiability.
>>    - *Version 1.5.1*
>>       - Adding role de_facto for boundary relations in Conflict Areas.
>>    - *Version 1.5*
>>       - Eliminating Zones of Control as concept.
>>          - Permitting claimed_by and controlled_by tags to be placed
>>          directly on administrative boundary relations, eliminating those (now
>>          redundant) Zones of Control
>>          - Other Zones of Control become Boundary Claim relations.
>>       - *Version 1.4.2*
>>       - Changing Crimea example to conform to current administrative
>>       boundary.
>>    - *Version 1.4.1*
>>       - Changing "all" keyword to a list for the value of the
>>       "controlled_by" tag.
>>       - Adding "UN" as a special value for the "controlled_by" tag.
>>    - *Version 1.4*
>>       - Using maritime boundaries instead of land boundaries
>>       - Eliminating redundant or unneeded relations:
>>          - De facto relation is eliminated; it is now the same as the
>>          existing administrative boundary
>>          - Minimal boundary is eliminated; it is now a Zone of Control
>>          with role "undisputed" in Master Claim
>>          - Master Claims and Zones of Control are eliminated when not
>>          needed, such as for countries with no disputes
>>          - Conflict Areas are explicitly made optional
>>       - Roles in Master Claim now differentiate how claimant and zone
>>       are related: undisputed, joint, de facto, claimed
>>       - Describing administered territories
>>       - Adding how to change the criteria for the List of Claiming
>>       Entities
>>    - *Version 1.3*
>>       - Possible extensions page added
>>       - Flattening the hierarchy by removing Disputed and Undisputed
>>       Areas
>>       - Three Boundary Relations: de facto, master, minimal
>>       - All Zones of Control have the role zone in the three Boundary
>>       Relations
>>       - Eliminating Lines of Control
>>       - Country code tag introduced
>>    - *Version 1.2*
>>       - Removing "according_to" tags
>>       - Adding Zones of Control and Lines of Control
>>       - Adding Disputed Areas and Undisputed Areas
>>       - Using type=land_area + land_area=administrative
>>       - Full country relations are no longer members of each other.
>>    - *Version 1.1*
>>       - Adding "according_to" tag for relations
>>    - *Version 1.0*
>>       - Initial proposal.
>>       - Land-based borders only; no maritime claims.
>>       - De facto and claimed borders and roles
>>       - List of Claiming Entities
>>       - OSM-designated borders
>>       - Claimed border relation becomes a member of the De Facto border
>>       relation, and vice versa
>>
>> I welcome feedback (public or private) on the new Resolution Period idea
>> for the "controlled by" tag -- the notion itself, and the length of the
>> period.
>>
>> I've archived some of the comments that are no longer applicable.
>>
>> The proposal is here:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries
>>
>> John
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20190104/dea58dc4/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list