[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)
okosm at johnfreed.com
Fri Jan 4 16:28:55 UTC 2019
Thank you for these examples. I will repost them on the discussion page and
Please note a couple of things:
1) This proposal is meant to cover only those things it states as its
intention to cover. For instance, it does not cover EEZ boundaries. I have
offered a couple of suggestions already on possible extensions, and if you
think others are warranted, please feel free to propose any.
2) I am not an expert. The proposal is meant to provide objective standards
for someone on the ground who can evaluate his or her observations and tag
the reality correctly. If I offer an opinion on how to tag something, it is
based only on my limited knowledge; there are not a lot of these places
that I have personally visited.
On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:24 PM Phake Nick <c933103 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>> - *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
>> - *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
>> - *Version 1.3*
>> - Possible extensions page added
>> - Flattening the hierarchy by removing Disputed and Undisputed
>> - Three Boundary Relations: de facto, master, minimal
>> - All Zones of Control have the role zone in the three Boundary
>> - 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
>> I've archived some of the comments that are no longer applicable.
>> The proposal is here:
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging