[OSM-talk] Relations Proposals for boundary, country and is_in

[Stefan Baebler]

Knut Arne Bjørndal wrote:
> "Raphael Studer" <studerap at gmail.com> writes:
>> I've founde three relation proposals with nearly the seam aims.
>>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Boundaries
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Country
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Relations/Proposed/Is_In
>>
>> I've also seen relations with type=nation meaning nearly the same as country.
Seeing some use of undocumented nation relation I beg to differ.
nation is not a country.

Countries are administratively (or by force) defined geographical 
entities. Countries generally don't overlap, have precise (although 
sometimes disputed) borders, can have exclaves, enclaves...can be mapped 
precisely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country

Nation are people with common culture. Nations can overlap, can have 
minorities in other countries, borders between nations are generally 
blurring with globalisation...can be mapped only vaguely.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

Sure, some countries might represent a nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation-state
but this certainly cannot be applied globally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State#Usage

So, I'm voting for country relation by using it in our parts of the wood. :)

Stefan