[OSM-talk] Maritme borders

Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) skippern at gimnechiske.org
Mon Feb 9 21:00:04 GMT 2009

On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 20:44:38 +0100, Jochen Topf <jochen at remote.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:24:00PM +0100, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail)
>> >> 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
>> > 
>> > Jochen
>> Why should we refuse to add boundary=maritime? Do you have a better
>> suggestion for baseline, contingency zone and exclusive economic zone?
>> And
>> why should the maritime territorial border be trated differently than
>> ones I mentioned? Isn't tagging admin_level enough to link it with other
>> national/administrative borders?
> Oh, I don't mind how you do baseline, contingency zone and exclusive
> economic zone. The only thing I am saying is that administrative borders
> are the same whether on land or on the sea. So they should be treated
> the same way. And admin_level is not enough in my opinion. The deciding
> tag is boundary=administrative. Well, actually the deciding thing is the
> same tag on the relation. Maybe we should have named it
> administrative_boundary_level=# . Then we'd only have one level. But we
> didn't and there are already many, many boundaries out there tagged
> that way. But you have a point there. Maybe we should just use
> admin_level and ignore the rest?
> Jochen
You mean to say that admin_level is ONLY used on boundaries? I have seen at
least a dousin other usages of admin_level. Besides, the way I suggested it
in Proposal 3 allows for clean and simple tagging, and doesn't make it
difficult for rendering software to choose if they want to render maritime
borders or not. The point in tagging maritime borders is to give access to
the information, and that gives reason to clearly differ between borders at
sea and borders at land. Whether there is a difference between them or not
is not up to us, but to those who choose to use the data, and that is
reason enough to tag them different. Yes it can be done by adding
maritime=yes to an administrative border, but I really don't see the point
in treating the territorial border differently than baseline, contingency
zone, eez, and what other maritime borders that we might decide to enter.
If you are not happy with Proposal 3, write your own, you are free to add
it to the rest of the proposals on Maritime Borders.
Aun Johnsen
via Webmail

More information about the talk mailing list