[OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 22. Okt. 2018 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Yuri Astrakhan <
yuriastrakhan at gmail.com>:

> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think
>> of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two
>> relations will overlap.
>>
>> That is absurd and conflict with OSM rule to map what exists.
>>
> On the contrary, it actually matches OSM rules better than deciding
> yourself.  When drawing a city outline, you go to that city's government,
> and get the geoshape from them. By extension, if you draw a country, you
> should use that country's definition.  If two country's definitions happen
> to overlap, we ought to document both.
>


In principle I agree it would be desirable to keep records of "all" claims
for a territory, (I can imagine there will be some more rules required,
because there are even small groups and individuals claiming authority over
territories with very low possibility to be recognized by anyone else, and
we might want to exclude those "trolls"). But this should not mean that we
do not keep information about who actually controls the territory, and who
has claims on it but does not control it. Simply adding a territory to 2
countries at the same time can't be the solution.

The complicated part seems to state whose version of the country/border it
is. We could have multiple countries for the different possibilities with a
tag (or memberships) that says from which country this is (e.g. for the
Crimea we would have the borders of Russia and of Ucraine according to the
Ucraine and to Russia = 4 versions of the 2 countries). But when those
countries have different disputes with different other countries, this
could become very complex and unmaintainable.

Not sure how to encode for members of a (country)relation that they are the
view of a specific country. Maybe it could be achieved with another
relation type. Border ways could go into border relations (one or more
connected ways) that are part of a border and have tags which say who has
recognized them or whose view it is (this could also be done with a role
like "according_to" and the country as a member, or a simple tag like
according_to=CN). The country relation would be built by referring to those
border relations (it would contain all borders and alternative borders, and
the parts would have the tag that says according to whom).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20181022/798b46bd/attachment.html>