Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote: Can you show me how to make rendering rules (I am mostly interested in Mapnik, but any renderer will do as a proof of concept), which does not draw a border line along the coastline of Germany and at the territorial waters border of Germany? Sample rendering rules for proposal 3 in Kosmos are at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maritime_borders/Kosmos_3 The border between Norway and Russia is tagged according to this proposal. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 08:57:07PM +0100, Gustav Foseid wrote: On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Gustav Foseid gust...@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 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maritime_borders It has been solved a while ago. See here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-January/032904.html There is no reason to treat maritime borders differently from other borders. 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. It would be nice if tagging of these borders could be solved soon. A formal proposal with wiki voting is probably the best way forward for these tags, with a page cleanup, RFC and a following vote within a couple of weeks. I am no big fan of the wiki vote procedure, but it is the best we have. Actually the best we have is the actual tagging in the database. Works wonderfully. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: Actually the best we have is the actual tagging in the database. Works wonderfully. I disagree. Can you show me how to make rendering rules (I am mostly interested in Mapnik, but any renderer will do as a proof of concept), which does not draw a border line along the coastline of Germany and at the territorial waters border of Germany? f you look at almost any non-OSM map, that be an Atlas of the World from you bookshelf, a tourist map of Europe or most (if not all) online maps, you will not see halos around islands and coastlines. This is not because the data to make them have been unavailable for the mapmakers, but because the mapmakers have made a choice not to show these borders or show them differently (perhaps as a thin blue line). If we tag maritime borders the same way as land borders, it will be very difficult for someone using OSM data to avoid drawing halos, with todays renderers I would even call it impossible. I think we should make it easy to follow long established cartographic conventions for general purpose maps using OSM data, and at the same time making it fairly easy to make a special purpose map. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: Actually the best we have is the actual tagging in the database. Works wonderfully. I disagree. Can you show me how to make rendering rules (I am mostly interested in Mapnik, but any renderer will do as a proof of concept), which does not draw a border line along the coastline of Germany and at the territorial waters border of Germany? Tagging the appropriate parts with maritime=yes or something would add valuable semantic information about these borders. It would also then make it very easy for renderers to suppress them or render them differently. 80n f you look at almost any non-OSM map, that be an Atlas of the World from you bookshelf, a tourist map of Europe or most (if not all) online maps, you will not see halos around islands and coastlines. This is not because the data to make them have been unavailable for the mapmakers, but because the mapmakers have made a choice not to show these borders or show them differently (perhaps as a thin blue line). If we tag maritime borders the same way as land borders, it will be very difficult for someone using OSM data to avoid drawing halos, with todays renderers I would even call it impossible. I think we should make it easy to follow long established cartographic conventions for general purpose maps using OSM data, and at the same time making it fairly easy to make a special purpose map. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 12:07 PM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Tagging the appropriate parts with maritime=yes or something would add valuable semantic information about these borders. It would also then make it very easy for renderers to suppress them or render them differently. One of the suggestions on the wiki page (and the one I like best), suggest using boundary=maritime and using border_type=* for the various types of maritime borders defined in UNCLOS. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
Hi, Gustav Foseid wrote: If we tag maritime borders the same way as land borders, it will be very difficult for someone using OSM data to avoid drawing halos, with todays renderers I would even call it impossible. You have probably not read the posting to which Jochen refers. It is here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-January/032904.html It distinguishes between boundary=administrative (which would denote the political boundaries, be they on water or on land), and land_area=administrative (for the land area). Other than this distinction, both are tagged the same. A landlocked country will have just one border relation that is tagged boundary=administrative AND land_area=administrative, whereas a country with maritime borders will have two relations that partly use the same ways, partly not. Crucially, the coastline ways are never tagged with any boundary tag; they are just included as-is in the land_area=administrative relation. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: You have probably not read the posting to which Jochen refers. It is here: Read, but not understood (even if I did try...) It distinguishes between boundary=administrative (which would denote the political boundaries, be they on water or on land), and land_area=administrative (for the land area). Other than this distinction, both are tagged the same. A landlocked country will have just one border relation that is tagged boundary=administrative AND land_area=administrative, whereas a country with maritime borders will have two relations that partly use the same ways, partly not. Crucially, the coastline ways are never tagged with any boundary tag; they are just included as-is in the land_area=administrative relation. So, a renderer will need to understand realtions to be able to render any borders? Would it not be a good idea to combine this relation with a specific set of tags for maritime borders? I still have not seen a ruleset (for any renderer) that does not render the halos around coastlines. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
Gustav Foseid schrieb: On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: Crucially, the coastline ways are never tagged with any boundary tag; they are just included as-is in the land_area=administrative relation. So, a renderer will need to understand realtions to be able to render any borders? The renderers need to understand relations for a lot of things already, routes and multipolygons just being two examples. -- Dirk-Lüder Deelkar Kreie Bremen - 53.0952°N 8.8652°E signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 11:07:17 +, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: Actually the best we have is the actual tagging in the database. Works wonderfully. I disagree. Can you show me how to make rendering rules (I am mostly interested in Mapnik, but any renderer will do as a proof of concept), which does not draw a border line along the coastline of Germany and at the territorial waters border of Germany? Tagging the appropriate parts with maritime=yes or something would add valuable semantic information about these borders. It would also then make it very easy for renderers to suppress them or render them differently. 80n Which doesn't solve how to tag baseline, contingency zone and exclusive economic zone. Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
2009/2/9 Jochen Topf joc...@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 gust...@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 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maritime_borders It has been solved a while ago. See here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2009-January/032904.html There is no reason to treat maritime borders differently from other borders. 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 is messy). 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 definitive boundary. 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. In short, I'm saying I support wiki-proposal 3, along with the additional tags on the relation, if deemed necessary. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 05:20:51PM +, 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 -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
2009/2/9 Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org: On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 05:20:51PM +, 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. Some software will want to differentiate, most will not require the maritime borders by default. Most will only care about the land boundaries and coastline, as most other world maps use. If they have a need for maritime boundaries, then do a select on boundary=maritime, or even just boundary=* boundary=maritime opens up the possibility for a logical ordering of boundary_type=eez etc. Or, we could extend admin_level to it, but admin_level as it is is a little untidy. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: 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? You have taken care of the wrong part of rendering. It is easy to render the territorial waters border, but difficult not to. I have checked some widely used online maps (didn't bother to go digging through my paper maps): Google Maps: Does not render international maritime borders Mapquest: Renders baseline/internal waters at high zoom levels, land borders only at low zoom levels. Live Maps: Renders only land borders Yahoo Maps: Renders only land borders and (at low zoom levels) internal waters border between two countries Map24.com: Internal waters and land borders? Basically, it seems that most map makers prefer to treat maritime borders and land borders differently. I think taggin in OSM should make this well established practice easy, instead of making it easy to render the territorial waters and land borders the same. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 06:30:31PM +, Thomas Wood wrote: 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. Some software will want to differentiate, most will not require the maritime borders by default. Most will only care about the land boundaries and coastline, as most other world maps use. Then they can use land_area=administrative as documented in my posting. We seem to mostly agree. You say that on land boundaries are boundary=administrative and on sea they are boundary=maritime. People can use both together if needed or only the land one together with coastline. I basically say the same thing but having a relation land_area=administrative for the land area part and a relation with boundary=administrative for land and maritime borders. The version where boundary=administrative is used on the water is, at least in Europe, already beeing used in many places. If you object to the relations, we need them for a sane way of finding out what is bordering on what. If they have a need for maritime boundaries, then do a select on boundary=maritime, or even just boundary=* There is no much need for maritime boundaries only, most people have a need for land+maritime boundaries or land boundaries+coastline. Both can easily be done with the system described my me. Its harder to check for two things if you can check for one. And checking for boundary=* doesn't work as you might get things like boundary=nature_park or whether in there. boundary=maritime opens up the possibility for a logical ordering of boundary_type=eez etc. Or, we could extend admin_level to it, but EEZ ist something different. I am only talking about administrative borders. Thats what decides which ones police is going to arrest you if you hit somebody over the head in there. Thats the same on land as it is on the sea. admin_level as it is is a little untidy. What is untidy about it? Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 20:44:38 +0100, Jochen Topf joc...@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 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. -- Brgds Aun Johnsen via Webmail ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 08:01:12PM +0100, Gustav Foseid wrote: On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 7:01 PM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: 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? You have taken care of the wrong part of rendering. It is easy to render the territorial waters border, but difficult not to. I have checked some widely used online maps (didn't bother to go digging through my paper maps): Google Maps: Does not render international maritime borders Mapquest: Renders baseline/internal waters at high zoom levels, land borders only at low zoom levels. Live Maps: Renders only land borders Yahoo Maps: Renders only land borders and (at low zoom levels) internal waters border between two countries Map24.com: Internal waters and land borders? Basically, it seems that most map makers prefer to treat maritime borders and land borders differently. I think taggin in OSM should make this well established practice easy, instead of making it easy to render the territorial waters and land borders the same. Ok, I understand your point: You want to easily be able to only render land based borders without looking at a relation. I can see one way of doing this by rendering the border first and then the water, but thats probably not the best idea as we don't have the water areas either. :-) We could use maritime=yes on those borders. Makes more sense in my opinion then boundary=maritime for those parts. If you are just looking at rendering rules, both could be used. But! There always is a but, isn't there. :-) When I look at popular maps, a very common thing is to only paint part of the map boundaries in the water. Normally only out from the coast for a few kilometers and maybe between islands or so. Does that mean we have to tag those parts differently? Maybe boundary=somewhat_important? Its nice to tag things to make it easier for the renderers, but first we should tag them for what they are. And the boundary out on the water is an administrative boundary like all the others. So it should be boundary=administrative. If you want to, you can add extra tags as hints to renderers. Jochen -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
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 joc...@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 confused. 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 -- Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:33 AM, Jochen Topf joc...@remote.org wrote: But! There always is a but, isn't there. :-) When I look at popular maps, a very common thing is to only paint part of the map boundaries in the water. Normally only out from the coast for a few kilometers and maybe between islands or so. Does that mean we have to tag those parts differently? Look at proposal 2 on the wiki page. This was my original proposal, but I have changed my mind, as the most common ways to do this, seems to be rendering either territorial waters or baseline/internal waters with countries on both sides. OK, so proposal 3 is not perfect for all renderers, but it is a pretty good start for the most common rendering needs, and it reflects the legal situation for these borders pretty well. It also is a good starting point for fiddling in the database to get other rendering rules. I have asked if you can come up with a rendering rules for your proposal (which is still not documented in the wiki) for the most common ways to render maps. I will provide some for proposal 3 as sson as I have the time. Maybe boundary=somewhat_important? Its nice to tag things to make it easier for the renderers, but first we should tag them for what they are. And the boundary out on the water is an administrative boundary like all the others. So it should be boundary=administrative. If you want to, you can add extra tags as hints to renderers. No, they are not administrative borders like all the others. They are part of a hiearchy, where territorial waters is the most important. Please take another look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea How should internal waters, contigious zone and EEZ be tagged? They are also boundaries. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Gustav Foseid gust...@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 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Maritime_borders It would be nice if tagging of these borders could be solved soon. A formal proposal with wiki voting is probably the best way forward for these tags, with a page cleanup, RFC and a following vote within a couple of weeks. I am no big fan of the wiki vote procedure, but it is the best we have. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Ugh. Can we (ping steve8) get some way of tagging this differently so it _doesn't_ show? It looks really, really ugly. As a temporary solution, I suggest that until a proper tagging scheme for maritime borders are found, the following tagging is used for territorial waters: boundary=administrative border_type=territorial_waters Only where this is a border between two nations (that is, the territorial waters meet and there is both a left:country and right:country) is admin_level=2 added. 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. Regards, Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
Thomas Wood wrote: In other news, I've converted the 12nm line around the UK and Ireland to be fully tagged, so it's now showing in its own bubble on the mapnik render. Ugh. Can we (ping steve8) get some way of tagging this differently so it _doesn't_ show? It looks really, really ugly. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Maritme-borders-tp21223603p21276713.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
Very well, it also gives me a reason to revert the bits that somebody deleted around the north west coast of scotland... 2009/1/4 Gustav Foseid gust...@gmail.com: On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 3:16 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Ugh. Can we (ping steve8) get some way of tagging this differently so it _doesn't_ show? It looks really, really ugly. As a temporary solution, I suggest that until a proper tagging scheme for maritime borders are found, the following tagging is used for territorial waters: boundary=administrative border_type=territorial_waters Only where this is a border between two nations (that is, the territorial waters meet and there is both a left:country and right:country) is admin_level=2 added. 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. Regards, Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
IMO, the proposal of Gustav is better, because maritime borders clearly are administrative. Martijn suggests that there is a clear difference between country and maritime borders. However, it are different properties of a border: a border can be one or both. The half of the Dutch country border is a maritime border. So I would propose to use boundary=administrative on all maritime borders and use another tag to distinguish them. Currently, borders are distinguished by admin_level. The wiki tells about admin_level: admin_level http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:admin_level=1 to 10 has been introduced in order that different borders can be rendered consistently among countries (doing this based on border_type would require knowledge of their hierarchy in each country). Based on this information, I conclude that every border has a border_type, but we tag it as admin_level for convenience. For example: border_type=province and inside(The Netherlands) implies admin_level=4. We mainly tag the admin_level only, because that one is the easier for rendering, but we think about it as border types and sometimes tag border_type too. So I would propose to use border_type for any border that has no admin_level defined. Thus the territorial sea will have admin_level=2 because it's a country border, but any other maritime border will only have border_type set. That works quite well with the current tagging: border_type is optional when admin_level is set, required otherwise. Also for rendering it's no problem: render borders based on admin_level and when that one's empty, use border_type. The only thing that remains is: which border_types are possible? Probably exclusive_economic_zone will be one of them. Steven Gustav Foseid schreef: On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@gmail.com mailto:klep...@gmail.com wrote: boundary=maritime? or something like: boundary=administrative admin_maritime=territorial ? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 3:50 AM, Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.comwrote: In other news, I've converted the 12nm line around the UK and Ireland to be fully tagged, so it's now showing in its own bubble on the mapnik render. In my mind, these halos around al islands, are in itself a good reason to provide som kind of hints for renderers in tha tagging of maritime borders. An renderer that does not want such bubbles can probably do some kind fo magic in their copy of the database to find boundaries more or less 12 nm from a coast and not render them, but it is hardly an easy operation. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
boundary=maritime? They are not political boundaries in the way countries are, since you can't actually physically mark them in any useful way. It's more like, in this area we consider you subject to our laws. Whether anyone cares is quite another issue. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@gmail.com http://svana.org/kleptog/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Martijn van Oosterhout klep...@gmail.comwrote: boundary=maritime? or something like: boundary=administrative admin_maritime=territorial ? - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:37 AM, Rory McCann r...@technomancy.org wrote: Some land borders, e.g. between Ireland and the UK are like that. No border control. It is not exactly the same. Anyone (say a person from Morocco or Colombia) is not allowed to walk across Ireland on his way to the UK without going through imigration, but he is allowed to sail through the Irish territorial waters on his way to the UK. The UK miltary is free to use the Irish economic zone (200 mile boundary) for military exercise and can sail through Irish territorial waters in their way there, but they are not free to march through Dublin on their way to a war game in Cork. I think maritime borders should be in OSM. I can't really think why they should be tagged differently. They are a boundary=adminitrative, and they do have an admin_level of 2 What border would you tag? The end of internal waters, the end of territorial waters or the end of the economic zone? I agree that they belong in OSM. But admin_level 2? To me, that implies that this is a boundary between two entities of level 2 (countries). The maritime borders, however, mark decreasing level of control with the same entity (country) on both sides of the border. The places where the territorial waters of two countries meet (that is, where there is less than 24 miles from shore to shore) tagging the same way as a land border makes more sense, in my opinion. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:26 PM, D Tucny d...@tucny.com wrote: I'm not exactly up on laws, rules, treaties and agreements etc regarding borders and controls, but, is this not about politics? If Someone from, using your example, Morocco, flies to the UK via Ireland, they also won't need to go through imigration in Ireland, as long as they are only transferring... That is up to the country you are transferring through. In the US, for instance, you need to go through imigration even when you are transferring between two international flights. The borders are real, they do exist do they not, but, isn't it up to the ruling goverment to decide how they enforce those borders, be it at land, at sea, in the air and with whom they allow free passage across those borders? I suggest the following Wikipedia article as a good starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea Should administative boundaries at level 2 show an area of border control only? Should the admin_level between EU member states or between schengen member states be a higher level? say 3 or 4? With an EU boundary at level 2? Or a Schengen boundary at level 2? Or overlapping schengen and EU boundaries at level 2 or 3... No, but I think admin_level should indicate that a line is a boundary between two entities of the same level. When you say that a boundary is admin_level 2, does that not indicate that you have one country on one side of the line and another country on the other side of the line? If used on maritime borders of 12 nm, it indicates that you have one country's territorial waters on one side and the contiguous zone of the same country on the other side. If used at 24 nm it indicates one contry's contiguos zone on one side and the same country's economic zone on the other side. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Steven te Brinke s.tebri...@student.utwente.nl wrote: The maritime borders clearly are administrative and probably are admin_level 2. However, on the wiki Iceland has defined the EEZ to be admin_level 1. I It's not actually used though, Iceland only has admin_level=6 borders defined at the moment. I just listed all the others I could think of along the axis given. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
2008/12/31 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com: On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Steven te Brinke s.tebri...@student.utwente.nl wrote: The maritime borders clearly are administrative and probably are admin_level 2. However, on the wiki Iceland has defined the EEZ to be admin_level 1. I It's not actually used though, Iceland only has admin_level=6 borders defined at the moment. I just listed all the others I could think of along the axis given. I think 1 was intended more as a continental 'boundary' even though it may be fuzzily defined at places. In other news, I've converted the 12nm line around the UK and Ireland to be fully tagged, so it's now showing in its own bubble on the mapnik render. I do note that Foula is not included in this line, so I'm looking for details on how they were originally created so I can modify it to include this island. -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 2:50 AM, Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com wrote: 2008/12/31 Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com: On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:44 AM, Steven te Brinke s.tebri...@student.utwente.nl wrote: The maritime borders clearly are administrative and probably are admin_level 2. However, on the wiki Iceland has defined the EEZ to be admin_level 1. I It's not actually used though, Iceland only has admin_level=6 borders defined at the moment. I just listed all the others I could think of along the axis given. I think 1 was intended more as a continental 'boundary' even though it may be fuzzily defined at places. Edit out that definition for Iceland if you don't think it makes sense, like I said it's not even being used and might be confusing currently. I don't see how a continent boundary depends under any sort of administrative tagging. Continents aren't collectively administered, they're geographical and historical features. In other news, I've converted the 12nm line around the UK and Ireland to be fully tagged, so it's now showing in its own bubble on the mapnik render. I do note that Foula is not included in this line, so I'm looking for details on how they were originally created so I can modify it to include this island. Maybe I'm just imagining this but it looks like the nuances of the coastline aren't reflected in the maritime border which always looks relatively straight or curved. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Maritme borders
On 30/12/08 21:44, Richard Bullock wrote: This is, at best, confusing and, at worst, wrong. The territorial waters and contiguous zones have very different legal status from a national border, you can for instance pass through the territorial waters of a nation without any border controls Some land borders, e.g. between Ireland and the UK are like that. No border control. I would suggest that maritime borders are not tagged the same way as land borders. Should we have a new tag for maritime borders? Stop tagging them? Ignore the problem? I think maritime borders should be in OSM. I can't really think why they should be tagged differently. They are a boundary=adminitrative, and they do have an admin_level of 2 Rory signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
