[OSM-talk] Maritme borders

Jochen Topf jochen at remote.org
Mon Feb 9 18:01:56 GMT 2009

On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 05:20:51PM +0000, Thomas Wood wrote:
> 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
> is messy).

Simple rendering without need for the relation has been taken care of
in the comprehensive proposal by tagging the ways with admin_level. What
else do you need?

> 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
> definitive boundary.

There is nothing "confirmed" in OSM anyway. Land and maritime borders are
like everything else we have from some unknown source of questionable
validity. :-) I see no difference here.

> 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
> worthy.

Why are they different? I don't see that.

Adding new tags (here boundary=maritime) always has a cost. Every
software that wants to do something with the data has to know about it.

Jochen Topf  jochen at remote.org  http://www.remote.org/jochen/  +49-721-388298

More information about the talk mailing list