Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries

[Johnparis]

And here are links to the two main Talk threads that most recently raise
this subject:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-November/081683.html
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-November/081723.html

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 8:28 AM Johnparis  wrote:

>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 4:31 AM Daniel Koć  wrote:
>
>> W dniu 27.11.2018 o 03:21, Johnparis pisze:
>> > A general proposal to address mapping disputed borders at the national
>> > level.
>>
>>
>> What is the link to this RFC? This one seems to be old and abandoned:
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/DisputedTerritories
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries

[Johnparis]

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries

On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 4:31 AM Daniel Koć  wrote:

> W dniu 27.11.2018 o 03:21, Johnparis pisze:
> > A general proposal to address mapping disputed borders at the national
> > level.
>
>
> What is the link to this RFC? This one seems to be old and abandoned:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/DisputedTerritories
>
>
> --
> "Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 27.11.2018 o 03:21, Johnparis pisze:
> A general proposal to address mapping disputed borders at the national
> level.


What is the link to this RFC? This one seems to be old and abandoned:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/DisputedTerritories


-- 
"Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 2:59 PM Kevin Kenny  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie 
> wrote:
>
>> Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas?
>> Or should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and
>> instead use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24?
>> 
>
>
> I really don't like overloading 'protected area' for what, in my region,
> is a unit of government.
>
> The First Nations' lands near me are, for the most part, recognized as
> 'domestic dependent nations' and, if we wanted to be formally correct,
> would most likely come in at admin_level=3.
>

I'm generally a fan of the admin_level option.  protected_area is OKisn,
but the protect_class=* tag definitely hits me as an oddity given other
tagging.  boundary=aboriginal_lands could be a supplemental tag to
admin_level.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries

[Johnparis]

A general proposal to address mapping disputed borders at the national
level.

I've read the discussions on the Tagging and Talk lists, and have given the
matter considerable thought (and experimented with different approaches)
before formulating the proposal. I hope it offers a mechanism to show
boundary claims in addition to the current display of de facto boundaries.

John
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Neighborhood Gateway Signs?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Thank you, AgusQui. That sounds like a good option for an artistic entrance
sign. Eg “Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas.”

Can you give a link to photos of some of these?

But I don’t think artwork will work as a tag for simple overhead signs
which don’t really qualify as artwork.

Also, city_entrance does not work well for signs in villages and
neighborhoods, or signs that mark the center of a place rather than the
entrance.

So it may still b necessary to make a new tag for these other situations
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:14 AM AgusQui  wrote:

> In Argentina we discussed this a few years ago and decided to use artwork
> together with artwork_type = city_entrance
> https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=19718
> 
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Clifford Snow]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:58 PM Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie 
> wrote:
>
>> Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas?
>> Or should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and
>> instead use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24?
>> 
>
>
> I really don't like overloading 'protected area' for what, in my region,
> is a unit of government.
>
> The First Nations' lands near me are, for the most part, recognized as
> 'domestic dependent nations' and, if we wanted to be formally correct,
> would most likely come in at admin_level=3. (admin_level is rather a mess
> in the US, because we have things that aren't strictly hierarchical at all
> levels - we have a First Nations treaty land (established by the Jay Treaty
> of 1794) that crosses an international border, and others that span state
> lines, just as we have cities across county lines, villages across township
> lines and so on.
>
> I can't speak for other countries so I'll limit my comments to the US. As
Kevin Kenny commented, tribes in the US are recognized as domestic
dependent nations.  But from there it gets messy. They can set their own
sales tax separate from the state and have their own courts. Yet in North
Dakota, the state determines voting requirements. For this reason I don't
think admin_level works very well.

As Alan stated in the original post, settling on a tag would be nice. It
might even be what's necessary to get the tribes to show interest in OSM.
(Of course that will result in more border disputes :-)

Clifford

Clifford.
-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC - Pipe valves

[Warin]

On 26/11/18 22:43, Xavier wrote:

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:02:46PM +1100, Warin wrote:

On 26/11/18 11:04, François Lacombe wrote:

Hi,

I think the document is complete, with all expected keys and values 
for this step
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pipeline_valves_proposal 



Let me know if any question remains unanswered.

Le jeu. 15 nov. 2018 à 01:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> a écrit :


   I had no idea what a 'globe valve' was .. wikipedia has it ...
   what I
   had called 'jumper valves' as that is the bit I have replaced many
   times.


Glad to learn another way to name them too
Jumper valve sounds like the domestic name for globe it seems


Think it is more to do with naming the sealing washer? It "jumps" 
back to prevent back flow.

And defiantly domestic use.


Do you mean a "one-way" or "check" valve?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_valve




No. A check valve only does one thing, stops back flow.

A 'globe valve' controls the rate of flow anywhere from off to on, if 
fitted with a jumper valve it also stops back flow.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Kevin Kenny]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM Alan McConchie 
wrote:

> Should we use the single tag boundary=aboriginal_lands for these areas? Or
> should we deprecate that tag (in other words, reject the proposal) and
> instead use boundary=protected_area + protect_class=24?
> 


I really don't like overloading 'protected area' for what, in my region, is
a unit of government.

The First Nations' lands near me are, for the most part, recognized as
'domestic dependent nations' and, if we wanted to be formally correct,
would most likely come in at admin_level=3. (admin_level is rather a mess
in the US, because we have things that aren't strictly hierarchical at all
levels - we have a First Nations treaty land (established by the Jay Treaty
of 1794) that crosses an international border, and others that span state
lines, just as we have cities across county lines, villages across township
lines and so on.

In my state, no First Nations land is within any township - towns, cities,
and "Indian Reservations" are all disjoint. The "Indian Reservations" have
home rule for many matters.

I'd be fine with boundary=administrative or a sui generis
boundary=aboriginal_lands, but 'protected_area' is horrible.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 11/26/18 17:00, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>> and I fail to see how much more
>> difficult it is to tag "boundary=protected area" and "protect_class=24" 
> 
> Because "24" is a completely random code, unlike boundary=aboriginal_lands

We generally *try* and make our data human-readable. If archaeologists
dig up an old planet file in 1000 years, then finding a tag
boundary=aboriginal_lands is more useful to them than protect_class=24.

Of course it's a far-fetched image but I find it helps making the right
decisions.

And yes, there are established things in OSM that would puzzle those
archaeolologists, like sac_scale or tracktype. Or maybe how to read a
PBF file. But we can't do all of their job for them ;)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=aboriginal_lands

[Mateusz Konieczny]

25. Nov 2018 16:16 by doughem...@hotmail.com :


> and I fail to see how much more 
> difficult it is to tag "boundary=protected area" and "protect_class=24" 




Because "24" is a completely random code, unlike boundary=aboriginal_lands

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Neighborhood Gateway Signs?

[AgusQui]

In Argentina we discussed this a few years ago and decided to use artwork
together with artwork_type = city_entrance
https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=19718
  



--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/11/2018 11:24, Peter Elderson wrote:

The whole thing seems pretty shaky to me.



That's unfortunately as true in the physical world as it is in OSM.

... and Paul Norman's "osmborder" (mentioned by Noémie previously) is a 
huge start - you get a list of boundary segments classified according to 
"dividing_line", "disputed", and "maritime".  However I suspect that 
more may be needed to classify what sort of dispute something is (and a 
particular one may be part of several, of different sorts).


There is some existing tagging on this - from 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=dispute click through to look 
at the other tags on the various disputed boundaries.


Best Regards,

Andy



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC - Pipe valves

[Xavier]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 08:02:46PM +1100, Warin wrote:

On 26/11/18 11:04, François Lacombe wrote:

Hi,

I think the document is complete, with all expected keys and values 
for this step

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pipeline_valves_proposal

Let me know if any question remains unanswered.

Le jeu. 15 nov. 2018 à 01:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> a écrit :


   I had no idea what a 'globe valve' was .. wikipedia has it  ...
   what I
   had called 'jumper valves' as that is the bit I have replaced many
   times.


Glad to learn another way to name them too
Jumper valve sounds like the domestic name for globe it seems


Think it is more to do with naming the sealing washer? It "jumps" back 
to prevent back flow.

And defiantly domestic use.


Do you mean a "one-way" or "check" valve?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_valve


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

[Peter Elderson]

The whole thing seems pretty shaky to me.

Op ma 26 nov. 2018 om 11:46 schreef Andy Townsend :

> On 26/11/2018 08:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >> On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a type=boundary
> relation to store information about claimed, "de facto", and "de jure"
> borders
> >
> > can you give a definition for de jure?
> > Which law applies?
>
>
> Notwithstanding that I don't think we can repurpose roles for this, as
> already mentioned, I think you need to look at actual examples rather
> talk in the abstract.
>
> To take Western Sahara as an example,
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Western_Sahara#United_Nations
> etc. describes the international political situation.  What would you
> say was the "de jure" border there and on what basis? According to
> MINURSO https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/minurso they are
> "preparing for a choice", rather than directly trying to establish an
> independent Western Sahara.
>
> Maybe part of the "de jure" list could come from those places in
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories#Current_entries
> (but excluding those for which there is no other claimant) would help?
> That names "Western Sahara", although it doesn't define its borders here.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/11/2018 08:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:

We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a type=boundary relation to store information 
about claimed, "de facto", and "de jure" borders


can you give a definition for de jure?
Which law applies?



Notwithstanding that I don't think we can repurpose roles for this, as 
already mentioned, I think you need to look at actual examples rather 
talk in the abstract.


To take Western Sahara as an example, 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Western_Sahara#United_Nations 
etc. describes the international political situation.  What would you 
say was the "de jure" border there and on what basis? According to 
MINURSO https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/minurso they are 
"preparing for a choice", rather than directly trying to establish an 
independent Western Sahara.


Maybe part of the "de jure" list could come from those places in 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories#Current_entries 
(but excluding those for which there is no other claimant) would help?  
That names "Western Sahara", although it doesn't define its borders here.


Best Regards,

Andy



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/11/2018 09:49, Warin wrote:


Where the two boundaries use the same way - simple - no problem.
Where they differ? The choices are then available and could be left to 
the renders rather than OSM?


Too simple?


It depends what problem you're trying to solve.  If you're just trying 
to create a map showing just one set of boundaries for one view of the 
situation, then it might work - although even if you're creating (say) a 
map of India showing the full extent of the claim over J then it still 
might help Indian users to know which borders match the line of control 
and which do not.


If you're trying to create a map for a neutral audience, or more than 
one audience, then yes it is too simple.


Best Regards,

Andy



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:44 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> Am Mo., 26. Nov. 2018 um 10:34 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar <
> sea...@gmail.com>:
>
>> can you give a definition for de jure?
>>
>>> Which law applies?
>>>
>>
>> Maybe there is a better word or phrase than "de jure" but I would
>> classify these as borders where both countries are in agreement because of
>> a treaty or a similar legal document. For example, this role could be
>> applied to more than 99% of the Canada-United States border (there are
>> still some minor disputes between the two).
>>
>
> maybe "confirmed" (=both parties confirm the border)
> or "agreed"?
>

I think "agreed" is better. "confirmed" may imply that the border has been
surveyed/marked on the ground, which is not necessarily the case.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] How to map a sliding section of the Alaska Pipeline

[Dave Swarthout]

Michael,
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm on the road so can't reply in detail but
I'll get back to you and the list before long.

Dave

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 5:17 PM Michael Patrick  wrote:

> > ... There is a short section of the Trans-Alaska pipeline that crosses a
> well-known fault line where it is attached to slides to allow lateral
> movement in case of an earthquake. I split the pipeline way and added a
> note to the section but that probably isn't visible to most data consumers.
> Any ideas?
>
> OMG, Thank You Dave!
>
> I love ontological edge cases -  and this is certainly good one. :-)
>
> I'd add something like "Deliberate Operator Movement" or "Directed
> Movement" or some such to my description. These sort of joints are quite
> common once one is cued to notice them.
>
> A friend of mine pointed on that a clear distinction was the pure
> unidirectional ( along one path ) of rail-lines, whether it's road trains,
> maglevs, or rail roads. There's no up/down or side ways component except
> through a split, curve, or join in the track, where in the case of a
> movable gantry there is usually a lifting, rotating, or conveying occurring
> in addition to along the track axis. And as an additional note, regardless
> of the type of point of contact ( rail, tire, magnetic ) the term for what
> directs the travel is a 'track' ( unfortunately already occupied by the
> road term ).
>
> > If it is moveable it is a gantry crane.  A gantry per se can be
> immobile, right?
>
> The immobile case ( like the fixed support for signs ) isn't that common,
> as far as I could tell - in the sign case, the immobile case was more
> commonly more simply called a 'bridge', probably because the spanning part
> on even movable gantries and cranes is called a bridge.
>
> > Maybe not a rail line in the conventional sense, but I tagged an
> (unfortunately disused) children's train in Ashgabat
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/429019713 as a railway even though it
> goes around and around, or used to, and has no destination.
>
> Another excellent case. Although it might be said t the origin and
> destination merely have the same location, and differ along time and
> direction path, , and as I noted, it's primary feature is as a conveyance,
> not 'positioning' something for an action. Here the 'rails are rails' in
> two uses (
> http://www.davidheyscollection.com/userimages/0001-dh-thornaby-roundhouse.jpg
> ), but only one is the 'conventional sense' of a rail line - the other rail
> is for positioning.
>
> Michael Patrick
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


-- 
Dave Swarthout
Homer, Alaska
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

[Sergio Manzi]

To me "agreed" seems better than "confirmed" (/and other possibilities could be 
"recognized" or "accepted"/) , but... do we really need to find an adjective 
qualifying such borders? I guess they represent the vast majority of 
boundaries, so we could just leave them alone and just qualify anomalous 
situations...

Cheers,

Sergio


On 2018-11-26 10:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Mo., 26. Nov. 2018 um 10:34 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar 
> mailto:sea...@gmail.com>>:
>
> can you give a definition for de jure?
>
> Which law applies?
>
>
> Maybe there is a better word or phrase than "de jure" but I would 
> classify these as borders where both countries are in agreement because of a 
> treaty or a similar legal document. For example, this role could be applied 
> to more than 99% of the Canada-United States border (there are still some 
> minor disputes between the two).
>
>
>
>
> maybe "confirmed" (=both parties confirm the border)
> or "agreed"?
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

[Warin]

On 26/11/18 20:32, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:


> On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar mailto:sea...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a
type=boundary relation to store information about claimed, "de
facto", and "de jure" borders

can you give a definition for de jure?
Which law applies?


Maybe there is a better word or phrase than "de jure" but I would 
classify these as borders where both countries are in agreement 
because of a treaty or a similar legal document. For example, this 
role could be applied to more than 99% of the Canada-United States 
border (there are still some minor disputes between the two).


Each country has its own boundary relation.
For example? No conflict. ;
Canada could have a boundary relation using way 666 as an outer.
USA could have a different boundary relation using the same way 666 as 
an outer.


The source may need to be stated ... I'd opt to put it on the way - to 
help stop people moving it.



Conflict;
Canada could have a boundary relation using way 667 as an outer.
USA could have a different boundary relation using way 668 as an outer.

These two may 'trespass' over each other.

Why is it required for OSM to state the cause of this problem?
OSM could simply indicate the opinions of where the boundary 'is' from 
each country.

This would then leave the render the problem of what to do.

Where the two boundaries use the same way - simple - no problem.
Where they differ? The choices are then available and could be left to 
the renders rather than OSM?


Too simple?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 26. Nov. 2018 um 10:34 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar <
sea...@gmail.com>:

> can you give a definition for de jure?
>
>> Which law applies?
>>
>
> Maybe there is a better word or phrase than "de jure" but I would classify
> these as borders where both countries are in agreement because of a treaty
> or a similar legal document. For example, this role could be applied to
> more than 99% of the Canada-United States border (there are still some
> minor disputes between the two).
>



maybe "confirmed" (=both parties confirm the border)
or "agreed"?

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer 
wrote:

> > On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
> >
> > We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a type=boundary
> relation to store information about claimed, "de facto", and "de jure"
> borders
>
> can you give a definition for de jure?
> Which law applies?
>

Maybe there is a better word or phrase than "de jure" but I would classify
these as borders where both countries are in agreement because of a treaty
or a similar legal document. For example, this role could be applied to
more than 99% of the Canada-United States border (there are still some
minor disputes between the two).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Proposed features - RFC - Pipe valves

[Warin]

On 26/11/18 11:04, François Lacombe wrote:

Hi,

I think the document is complete, with all expected keys and values 
for this step

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pipeline_valves_proposal

Let me know if any question remains unanswered.

Le jeu. 15 nov. 2018 à 01:12, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> a écrit :


I had no idea what a 'globe valve' was .. wikipedia has it  ...
what I
had called 'jumper valves' as that is the bit I have replaced many
times.


Glad to learn another way to name them too
Jumper valve sounds like the domestic name for globe it seems


Think it is more to do with naming the sealing washer? It "jumps" back 
to prevent back flow.

And defiantly domestic use.



Probably best to have a picture to describe them .. you can use the
wikipedia pictures such as


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Globe_valve_diagram.svg/220px-Globe_valve_diagram.svg.png


I'll surely use them to create the dedicated valve=* values pages if 
accepted

These are really good quality pictures

All the best

François


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
> 
> We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a type=boundary 
> relation to store information about claimed, "de facto", and "de jure" borders


can you give a definition for de jure?
Which law applies?

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging