[OSM-talk] Maritme borders

Jochen Topf jochen at remote.org
Mon Feb 9 23:17:31 GMT 2009

On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 10:00:04PM +0100, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote:
> 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)
> wrote:
> >> >> 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
> >> 
> >> 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
> the
> >> 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

You said above "Isn't tagging admin_level enough to link it with other
national/administrative borders?". Now you say they are not? I am

> 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.

I did. And mentioned it here, didn't I?

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

More information about the talk mailing list