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

Johnparis 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
reply there.

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.
>> *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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190104/34261edb/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list