[OSM-talk] Maritme borders
grand.edgemaster at gmail.com
Mon Feb 9 17:20:51 GMT 2009
2009/2/9 Jochen Topf <jochen at remote.org>:
> On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 08:57:07PM +0100, Gustav Foseid wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Gustav Foseid <gustavf at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > This is not intended to solve all problems with tagging of maritime
>> > borders, just as a temporary way to tag these borders without causing
>> > bubbles around all coastlines in all general purpose renderers.
>> Some more progess has been made on the wiki page, and I suggest everyone
>> interested in the topic of maritime borders head over to
> It has been solved a while ago. See here:
> There is no reason to treat maritime borders differently from other
> There was a discussion on talk-de and here and after I posted that
> comprehensive proposal nothing else. I interpret this as accepted. And I
> have seen that some people have started adopting it in the database.
I see no reason why the relation model cannot apply with a tagging of
boundary=maritime on the maritime sections of the boundary.
The required ways will still be retrievable from a (correctly
produced) relation, so the primary concern of the tagging of the ways
should be for renderers (and certainly in Mapnik's case, keeping the
tagging simple greatly simplifies the implementation - messing around
with specific relations just to determine the maritime status of a way
Yes, we should also consider other data clients, but if they require
the whole boundary of a country, land and maritime sections will all
be available in a relation, as stated in the referred posting.
I also think we should keep boundary=administrative for 'confirmed'
boundaries, the territorial waters maritime boundaries is (currently)
defined from OSM's view of the country's coastline, so may not be the
Maritime borders are by their nature different from administrative
borders on land, so I think that using boundary=maritime rather than
boundary=administrative maritime=yes (or other suggested options) is
In short, I'm saying I support wiki-proposal 3, along with the
additional tags on the relation, if deemed necessary.
More information about the talk