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] 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] 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] 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

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

[Andy Townsend]

Hi Noémie,

I personally wouldn't object to adding "disputed=yes" to borders that 
are displuted (though I suspect that the question that will soon follow 
is "what is the nature of the dispute?  Is it about where the border is 
(e.g. Hans Island) or who owns a particular piece of land one side of 
it?  It'd be good to get more feedback about the use of disputed=yes 
though. https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/DYd suggests there's not a lot of 
usage currently.


An example of the second sort is Kosovo - it thinks that it is an 
independent state, and Serbia still views it as being part of Serbia, 
but the actual boundaries around Kosovo aren't disputed - just whether 
what is inside those borders is an independent state or part of Serbia.


Another example of the that sort of problem is 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8692572 - it's not disputed where it 
is, and Spain and Morocco have "agreed to differ" on sovereignty for 
now, but it'd be good to be able to see that. Current renderings don't 
show "is an outer of one relation but not an inner of another".


Best Regards,

Andy

On 20/11/2018 13:26, Noémie Lehuby wrote:


Hi,

You are right Andy, it depends a lot about the use case problem you 
are trying to fix.


Let's say they are two use cases:
The first one is about creating polygons from administrative 
boundaries relations, to make some geographical inclusions or reverse 
geocoding magic.
I use Cosmogony <http://cosmogony.world/#/about> for that. Overlapping 
and unclaimed territories do create inconsistencies, but from my point 
of view, this is a minor issue.


My second use case is rendering.
And rendering the disputed borders of Croatia and Serbia 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/45.7714/18.9494> (for instance) 
as they are right now in OSM does not look good in my opinion. The 
resulting map is quite a mess and it looks like there is another 
country in between, or some kind of enclave ... This is mainly about 
create a map that is understandable


And this issue is well solved by Paul Norman's approach in osmborder 
<https://github.com/pnorman/osmborder>, which uses disputed=yes (and a 
few other tags with the same meaning) to flag the parts of the borders 
that are disputed and allow to render them differently, just like in 
Graeme's drawing.
My question is all about that: do we consider this as a good practice 
? Is it ok if I add disputed=yes all over the Croatia / Serbia way 
borders ?


I hope it helps clarify the purpose ;)

Noémie Lehuby
Qwant Research
Le 13/11/2018 à 21:37, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org a écrit :


From: Andy Townsend
To:tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders
Message-ID:<15a1ece6-b10a-59d4-528b-d5b47ed44...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

On 12/11/2018 13:21, Noémie Lehuby wrote:

Should we consider the disputed=yes tag on boundary ways as a /de
facto/ standard and uniformize a few borders ?


Can you give examples of where you'd use it?  There are many, many
examples of disputed borders in OSM and they have been mapped in
different ways.  Each dispute is different - sometimes theren't no
dispute about where the border is, just about the status.  Sometimes
there are oddities (like Bir Tawil) where there are both different
overlapping claims and completely unclaimed territory.

You gave a couple of examples of "different ways of mapping" in OSM in
an earlier post, saying that some examples in OSM don't match
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf  
.  You also gave a couple of examples where there are overlapping

borders in OSM.  I can think of a couple of places (Somalia / Somaliland
is one example, various maritime disputes are others) where this may
actually be the best way of mapping reality.  I'm not convinced a simple
"disputed=yes" tag would help much.


Should we create a proposal about this tag ?


Without a bit more discussion about what the problem that you're trying
to solve here actually is I'm not convinced that that will help


The borders data do not fit the doc...


Just to be clear, which documentation are you actually talking about?
There are lots of bits and pieces in the OSM wiki, and lots of them
contradict one another.


...and the statement from the Foundation and are not really usable
right now...


Can you give an example of a border that you can't apply the examples in
DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf to?  What problem are you actually
trying to solve?  are you:

   * Trying to find a graphical representation showing that "there is a
 dispute here"?
   * Trying to parcel up the world into best-fit single territories (to
 avoid double counting) for non-graphical processing?
   * Trying to display actual territorial control?
   * Trying to show what type of dispute exists somewhere?

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

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/11/2018 16:33, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:30 PM SelfishSeahorse 
mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>> wrote:


1. 'inner' roles (and thus 'outer' roles too) are still needed in
case a country has enclaves.


Even if a country has exclaves and/or has enclaves within it, you 
still don't need to have "inner" and "outer" roles at all in order to 
make sense of the (multi)polygon.


Spatial databases may not need them, but humans editing the data (at the 
very least, this human) find them very useful.


Best Regards,

Andy

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

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

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 17:35, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:30 PM SelfishSeahorse  
> wrote:
>>
>> 1. 'inner' roles (and thus 'outer' roles too) are still needed in case a 
>> country has enclaves.
>
>
> Even if a country has exclaves and/or has enclaves within it, you still don't 
> need to have "inner" and "outer" roles at all in order to make sense of the 
> (multi)polygon. They are there as a hint to fix hopelessly broken 
> multipolygon relations, but if such a relation is not broken, the "inner" and 
> "outer" roles are actually superfluous. For instance, the program osm2pgsql 
> actually has a check function named "check_inner_outer_roles"[1] to identify 
> relation member ways having the wrong roles in a type=multipolygon or 
> type=boundary relation. It is able to do this check precisely because it is 
> able to analyze a multipolygon relation and be able to infer the correct 
> roles for itself.
>
> 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.
>
> [1] 
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/osm2pgsql/blob/93b73e5f5c3b20e80027ecf272f553d26f49f2e8/contrib/libosmium/osmium/area/detail/basic_assembler.hpp#L172

Thank you for this information and for correcting me!

___
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 Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:30 PM SelfishSeahorse 
wrote:

> 1. 'inner' roles (and thus 'outer' roles too) are still needed in case a
> country has enclaves.
>

Even if a country has exclaves and/or has enclaves within it, you still
don't need to have "inner" and "outer" roles at all in order to make sense
of the (multi)polygon. They are there as a hint to fix hopelessly broken
multipolygon relations, but if such a relation is not broken, the "inner"
and "outer" roles are actually superfluous. For instance, the program
osm2pgsql actually has a check function named "check_inner_outer_roles"[1]
to identify relation member ways having the wrong roles in a
type=multipolygon or type=boundary relation. It is able to do this check
precisely because it is able to analyze a multipolygon relation and be able
to infer the correct roles for itself.

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.

[1]
https://github.com/openstreetmap/osm2pgsql/blob/93b73e5f5c3b20e80027ecf272f553d26f49f2e8/contrib/libosmium/osmium/area/detail/basic_assembler.hpp#L172
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[Noémie Lehuby]

Hi,

You are right Andy, it depends a lot about the use case problem you are 
trying to fix.


Let's say they are two use cases:
The first one is about creating polygons from administrative boundaries 
relations, to make some geographical inclusions or reverse geocoding magic.
I use Cosmogony <http://cosmogony.world/#/about> for that. Overlapping 
and unclaimed territories do create inconsistencies, but from my point 
of view, this is a minor issue.


My second use case is rendering.
And rendering the disputed borders of Croatia and Serbia 
<https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=11/45.7714/18.9494> (for instance) 
as they are right now in OSM does not look good in my opinion. The 
resulting map is quite a mess and it looks like there is another country 
in between, or some kind of enclave ... This is mainly about create a 
map that is understandable


And this issue is well solved by Paul Norman's approach in osmborder 
<https://github.com/pnorman/osmborder>, which uses disputed=yes (and a 
few other tags with the same meaning) to flag the parts of the borders 
that are disputed and allow to render them differently, just like in 
Graeme's drawing.
My question is all about that: do we consider this as a good practice ? 
Is it ok if I add disputed=yes all over the Croatia / Serbia way borders ?


I hope it helps clarify the purpose ;)

Noémie Lehuby
Qwant Research

Le 13/11/2018 à 21:37, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org a écrit :


From: Andy Townsend 
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders
Message-ID: <15a1ece6-b10a-59d4-528b-d5b47ed44...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

On 12/11/2018 13:21, Noémie Lehuby wrote:

Should we consider the disputed=yes tag on boundary ways as a /de
facto/ standard and uniformize a few borders ?


Can you give examples of where you'd use it?  There are many, many
examples of disputed borders in OSM and they have been mapped in
different ways.  Each dispute is different - sometimes theren't no
dispute about where the border is, just about the status.  Sometimes
there are oddities (like Bir Tawil) where there are both different
overlapping claims and completely unclaimed territory.

You gave a couple of examples of "different ways of mapping" in OSM in
an earlier post, saying that some examples in OSM don't match
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf
.  You also gave a couple of examples where there are overlapping
borders in OSM.  I can think of a couple of places (Somalia / Somaliland
is one example, various maritime disputes are others) where this may
actually be the best way of mapping reality.  I'm not convinced a simple
"disputed=yes" tag would help much.


Should we create a proposal about this tag ?


Without a bit more discussion about what the problem that you're trying
to solve here actually is I'm not convinced that that will help


The borders data do not fit the doc...


Just to be clear, which documentation are you actually talking about?
There are lots of bits and pieces in the OSM wiki, and lots of them
contradict one another.


...and the statement from the Foundation and are not really usable
right now...


Can you give an example of a border that you can't apply the examples in
DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf to?  What problem are you actually
trying to solve?  are you:

   * Trying to find a graphical representation showing that "there is a
 dispute here"?
   * Trying to parcel up the world into best-fit single territories (to
 avoid double counting) for non-graphical processing?
   * Trying to display actual territorial control?
   * Trying to show what type of dispute exists somewhere?


All of these are somewhat different problems...  I'm not saying that
there isn't a problem to be solved here (in fact there are many
different ones).

Best Regards,

Andy
___
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 14. Nov 2018, at 10:28, SelfishSeahorse  wrote:
> 
> I like your idea with 'de_jure', 'de_facto' and 'claimed' roles.


I can understand de facto and claimed, but I find de jure hard. Which law do 
you apply? There is international law, customary international law ok, but if 
the country doesn’t consent to certain ideas, e.g. doesn’t recognize the ICJ, 
or has a different idea of customary international law? There are international 
treaties, but they might contradict themselves, be disputed by one of the 
parties, not be ratified by some few countries but by the vast majority, etc. 
Somehow we will have to judge ourselves or decide which authority we recognize 
(e.g. UN/ICJ).


Cheers, Martin 
___
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 14. Nov 2018, at 00:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:

>> And that's assuming a disputed flag doesn't cause more problems than it 
>> solves: "No, that border
>> isn't disputed, we're absolutely certain it's right." says one of the 
>> countries involved.  So now we
>> need a flag pointing out that one country disputes that it's a disputed 
>> border...
> 
> You're probably quite right there as well :-(


I would not expect it to be a problem to find out which borders are disputed, 
the disputes are generally known. A more difficult question could be people 
claiming land, where they aren’t a country, e.g. Palestine or Tibet, because in 
these cases it might be less questionable that there are significant claims, 
but there will be also many more, less known, and claimed by less people, down 
to single individuals which claim sovereignty. We would have to give workable 
and appropriate definitions where we draw the line.

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

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

[SelfishSeahorse]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 01:52, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
>
> My thinking on this is we should re-purpose the relation roles for this sort 
> of tagging. Right now we just copy the roles from type=multipolygon relations 
> (inner, outer) when we should be using something like the following:
>
> Hypothetical but real-life example:
> Country A and Country B are disputing Territory C but currently Country A 
> controls it.
> - The borders (ways) between A and B that are not in dispute should be tagged 
> with role=de_jure in both countries' boundary relations
> - The line of control (so the border between B and C) should be tagged with 
> role=de_facto in both countries' boundary relations.
> - The claimed border of B (so the "border" between A and C) should be tagged 
> with role=claimed in Country B's relation.
>
> So if you want to draw borders as we currently draw them in OSM, just pick-up 
> the de_jure and de_facto role ways in the relations to build up the boundary 
> polygons.
>
> But if you're from Country B and you want your claimed borders, just pick-up 
> the de_jure and claimed role ways in the relations to build up Country B's 
> boundary polygon.
>
> The point is, "inner" and "outer" are really superfluous and can be inferred 
> from the geometry itself. So we should be using the relation role to tag 
> these sorts of things. And we can even use it to tag even more complicated 
> situations like if Territory C is split in control between A and B.
>
> I am open to alternatives to my suggested role names, by the way ("de_jure", 
> "de_facto", "claimed").

I like your idea with 'de_jure', 'de_facto' and 'claimed' roles.
However, i see the following problems:

1. 'inner' roles (and thus 'outer' roles too) are still needed in
case a country has enclaves.
2. The boundary polygon would still not hold the information which
territory is undisputed and which is disputed. You still only have an
area that includes undisputed and disputed territory.

A possible solution i see would be:

1. A new boundary:part relation (with inner and outer roles) that
only includes either the undisputed or disputed area of a country.
2. Changing the definition of the current boundary relation in a
way that these boundary:part relations (areas) can be added as members
with role 'undisputed', 'controlled' or 'claimed' to the boundary
relation.

Thus, your example above (Country A and Country B are disputing
Territory C but currently Country A controls it) would be tagged as
follows:

1. A type=boundary:part relation with the area of country A
without the disputed territory C.
2. A type=boundary:part relation with the area of country B
without the disputed territory C.
3. A type=boundary:part relation with the disputed territory C.
4. A type=boundary relation for country A with 1 as member with
role 'undisputed' and 3 as member with role 'controlled'.
5. A type=boundary relation for country B with 2 as member with
role 'undisputed' and 3 as member with role 'claimed'.

Regards
Markus

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

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 08:46, Paul Allen  wrote:

>
>
> But look at what you're trying to achieve with special values meaning
> disputed.  So 2.5 (or -2) is the
> same as 2 but disputed, 3.5 (or -3) is the same as 3 but disputed.  It's
> cleaner for code in the
> renderer and for code in editors (and wetware in humans) to just have
> admin_level:disputed=yes (or some such) rather than give special meanings
> to special values
> of a number.
>

Fair enough thanks Paul. I won't even pretend to know anything about
programming, coding & so on, so I certainly won't argue with you!

I'd just had a thought about Marc's question earlier ^ as to "how" to tag
it & thought that may have worked?

And that's assuming a disputed flag doesn't cause more problems than it
> solves: "No, that border
> isn't disputed, we're absolutely certain it's right." says one of the
> countries involved.  So now we
> need a flag pointing out that one country disputes that it's a disputed
> border...
>

You're probably quite right there as well :-(

Thanks

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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:24 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> I had originally though about calling it 2.0 or 2.5, but thought that may
> create issues!
>
> So, would aminn_level=2.5 work?
>

Depends if the database schema holds it as an integer or not.  That problem
also applies to
admin_level=-2 depending on whether the schema uses signed or insigned
integers for it.
Or it may be held as a string, in which case you could have
admin_level=2.717828 to deal with
disputes over the bridges in Königsberg.  And admin_level=3.14169265358979
for disputes
over pie.

But look at what you're trying to achieve with special values meaning
disputed.  So 2.5 (or -2) is the
same as 2 but disputed, 3.5 (or -3) is the same as 3 but disputed.  It's
cleaner for code in the
renderer and for code in editors (and wetware in humans) to just have
admin_level:disputed=yes (or some such) rather than give special meanings
to special values
of a number.

The days are long gone (thankfully) when programmers had to resort to
trickery like this to
squeeze, for example, a complete typesetting system into 64K of RAM.  These
days they go for
comprehensibility and maintainability over saving a few bytes here and
there.

And that's assuming a disputed flag doesn't cause more problems than it
solves: "No, that border
isn't disputed, we're absolutely certain it's right." says one of the
countries involved.  So now we
need a flag pointing out that one country disputes that it's a disputed
border...

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

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

[Andy Townsend]

On 12/11/2018 13:21, Noémie Lehuby wrote:


Should we consider the disputed=yes tag on boundary ways as a /de 
facto/ standard and uniformize a few borders ?




Can you give examples of where you'd use it?  There are many, many 
examples of disputed borders in OSM and they have been mapped in 
different ways.  Each dispute is different - sometimes theren't no 
dispute about where the border is, just about the status.  Sometimes 
there are oddities (like Bir Tawil) where there are both different 
overlapping claims and completely unclaimed territory.


You gave a couple of examples of "different ways of mapping" in OSM in 
an earlier post, saying that some examples in OSM don't match 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf 
.  You also gave a couple of examples where there are overlapping 
borders in OSM.  I can think of a couple of places (Somalia / Somaliland 
is one example, various maritime disputes are others) where this may 
actually be the best way of mapping reality.  I'm not convinced a simple 
"disputed=yes" tag would help much.



Should we create a proposal about this tag ?



Without a bit more discussion about what the problem that you're trying 
to solve here actually is I'm not convinced that that will help



The borders data do not fit the doc...



Just to be clear, which documentation are you actually talking about?  
There are lots of bits and pieces in the OSM wiki, and lots of them 
contradict one another.


...and the statement from the Foundation and are not really usable 
right now...


Can you give an example of a border that you can't apply the examples in 
DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf to?  What problem are you actually 
trying to solve?  are you:


 * Trying to find a graphical representation showing that "there is a
   dispute here"?
 * Trying to parcel up the world into best-fit single territories (to
   avoid double counting) for non-graphical processing?
 * Trying to display actual territorial control?
 * Trying to show what type of dispute exists somewhere?


All of these are somewhat different problems...  I'm not saying that 
there isn't a problem to be solved here (in fact there are many 
different ones).


Best Regards,

Andy


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

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

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 7:07 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

How about marking the disputed area (dashed lines) as a new level, say
> boundary=administrative + admin_level=15?
>

Please, not this.  From the first two sentences of the first paragraph of
the wiki:

The admin_level key describes the administrative level of an object within
a government hierarchy. A lower level means higher in the hierarchy.

Your suggestion breaks this, which is reason enough not to do it.  It means
special-casing in
editors and renderers, which complicates the code a little.  It also means
special-casing in
humans, who are notoriously bad at getting things wrong.

In programming, this sort of trick is considered a very bad thing.  In the
past it was quite common,
but these days programmers try to avoid putting special-case values into an
otherwise hierarchical
or quantitative field (some programmers might accept negative numbers as
having special meaning,
but many would not).

It would also require more effort to reverse if a dispute is resolved.
Having something like
admin_level=2 + disputed=yes can be reversed easily, but admin_level=15
requires extra
effort (not much, but some) in order to figure out what the admin_level
should change to.
Even admin_level=-2 meaning that when resolved it changes to admin_level=2
would be
better than this.

To complicate matters further, has anyone considered what to do with
condominia like
Pheasant Island ?  It's not
disputed, but it belongs to France for 6 months of the year and to
Spain for the other six months of the year.  There are other condominia
where sovereignty
is joint but continuous rather than time-shared.

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

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

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 10:58, marc marc  wrote:

> everybody agree with that, the question was : how ?


Hopefully, the drawing works?

Not sure if this will make any sort of sense, but here goes!

[image: OSM dispute.jpg]
Countries A & B share a common border, stretching from Country C to the
Ocean (& wouldn't it make for much easier mapping if things did look like
this!). Both countries are happy with the top & bottom sections of the
border (solid, straight lines). The old border continued as the straight,
dashed line. Country A has now decided that the border should follow the
line of the river that curves 50klm into "B" (curved dashed line).

So, the borders (solid lines) would already be marked as
boundary=administrative + admin_level=2

How about marking the disputed area (dashed lines) as a new level, say
boundary=administrative + admin_level=15?

That could also then be rendered as a dashed red line on the map, & maybe
even show the whole area between these as a red cross-hash or similar, to
warn mappers that this area is in dispute, so be careful with how things
are marked.

Conceivable?

Thanks

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

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

[marc marc]

On 12. Nov 2018, at 15:34, Simon Poole  wrote:
> a consistent set of border polygons 
> (which is what people want in the end).

everybody agree with that, the question was : how ?
i didn't understand very well what you propose to achieve this goal
take one of the initial exemple.
the border IS inconsistent at the moment and I didn't understand
what the concrete solution you're thinking about.
split the disputed area in 2 and use this way as a unique "border"
in the relationship between the 2 countries? why not...
___
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 12, 2018 at 9:23 PM Noémie Lehuby  wrote:

> Should we consider the dispusted=yes tag on boundary ways as a *de facto*
> standard and uniformize a few borders ? Should we create a proposal about
> this tag ?
>
> The borders data do not fit the doc and the statement from the Foundation
> and are not really usable right now...
>

My thinking on this is we should re-purpose the relation roles for this
sort of tagging. Right now we just copy the roles from type=multipolygon
relations (inner, outer) when we should be using something like the
following:

Hypothetical but real-life example:
Country A and Country B are disputing Territory C but currently Country A
controls it.
- The borders (ways) between A and B that are not in dispute should be
tagged with role=de_jure in both countries' boundary relations
- The line of control (so the border between B and C) should be tagged with
role=de_facto in both countries' boundary relations.
- The claimed border of B (so the "border" between A and C) should be
tagged with role=claimed in Country B's relation.

So if you want to draw borders as we currently draw them in OSM, just
pick-up the de_jure and de_facto role ways in the relations to build up the
boundary polygons.

But if you're from Country B and you want your claimed borders, just
pick-up the de_jure and claimed role ways in the relations to build up
Country B's boundary polygon.

The point is, "inner" and "outer" are really superfluous and can be
inferred from the geometry itself. So we should be using the relation role
to tag these sorts of things. And we can even use it to tag even more
complicated situations like if Territory C is split in control between A
and B.

I am open to alternatives to my suggested role names, by the way
("de_jure", "de_facto", "claimed").
___
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 12. Nov 2018, at 15:34, Simon Poole  wrote:
> 
> There are only a very small number of countries, maybe none, that don't
> have any sections of their borders that are disputed. While it can be
> argued that moving away from our de facto area of control model allows
> to reflect reality better, it also makes the borders essentially
> unusable without making ~200 x "average number of border disputes"
> decisions to get to a consistent set of border polygons (which is what
> people want in the end).



maybe that part could be simplified if we could find a way to tag who 
recognizes or supports which version, so you could render the world according 
to the swiss government (for example)? I am not sure though if all countries 
have opinions on border disputes far away from them. From a practical point of 
view, if we had one tag for each supporting country these hundreds tags would 
get in the way for finding the other tags, a semicolon separated list with 
country codes is risking of going beyond the 255 char limit, and would not be 
very nice to edit. 

I clearly subscribe to your reality argument, international recognition is an 
important aspect of borders, apart from the physical control.

Most people don’t need a „consistent set of border polygons“, it wouldn’t hurt 
them to see 2 alternatives for (generally/often) relatively small patches of 
land. Probably most people do not care for the whole world, a few decisions for 
the places near them will usually be sufficient for rendering their area of 
interest according to their preferred view - assuming they do not want to see 
the disputes, which I am not even certain of.
You can get easy to use, simplified country shapefiles from natural earth, if 
you want OSM, it is because you care for detail :) 
Getting a consistent set of country borders including all known disputed 
borders is something we should render possible, it can also reduce the 
suspicion we would be mostly transporting a western view of the world, and 
effectively lead to more neutrality. A consistent set _should_ have the 
disputes.


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

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

[Simon Poole]

I'm not a big fan of doing this.

There are only a very small number of countries, maybe none, that don't
have any sections of their borders that are disputed. While it can be
argued that moving away from our de facto area of control model allows
to reflect reality better, it also makes the borders essentially
unusable without making ~200 x "average number of border disputes"
decisions to get to a consistent set of border polygons (which is what
people want in the end).

Simon 

Am 12.11.2018 um 14:32 schrieb marc marc:
> it seems to me that there are 2 possible solutions
> - put the disputed area in the type=boundary boundary+administrative 
> relationship of the 2 countries and put dispute=yes on the way(s) concerned.
> - put the disputed area in neither of the two relationships.
> this area 'll be a mp, and thus a relation type=boundary 
> boundary=disputed make sense.
>
> it should also be ensured that it is a conflict and not simply
> an unintentional inconsistency caused by unshared way
> where they should have been
>
> Le 12. 11. 18 à 14:21, Noémie Lehuby a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> Any thoughts about this ?
>>
>> Should we consider the dispusted=yes tag on boundary ways as a /de 
>> facto/ standard and uniformize a few borders ? Should we create a 
>> proposal about this tag ?
>> The borders data do not fit the doc and the statement from the 
>> Foundation and are not really usable right now...
>>
>> Noémie Lehuby
>> Qwant Research
>>
>> Le 26/10/2018 à 20:52, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org a écrit :
>>> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:16:20 -0400
>>> From: Yuri Astrakhan
>>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>>> 
>>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders ?
>>> Message-ID:
>>> 
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>
>>> Another related issue -- maritime disputed borders. In the case of Crimea,
>>> the disputed border with Russia is over water, thus not showing clearly in
>>> many renderings, and over land with Ukraine, showing as a solid line - thus
>>> appearing to side with the Russian interpretation.
>>>
>>> A while ago Paul Norman wrote osmborder tool to help with the disputed and
>>> maritime border rendering [1].  His tool mostly uses disputed=yes . The big
>>> problem with rendering was that multiple borders
>>> (city/county/state/country) were all overlapping one on top of the other,
>>> producing a solid line. Instead, when drawing there should always be just
>>> one line with the lowest admin level.
>>>
>>> [1]:https://github.com/pnorman/osmborder
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:05 PM Noémie Lehuby  wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> There seems to be no actual consensus on the way to map disputed borders.
>>>> The statement from the Foundation
>>>> <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf>
>>>> recommend to map the border that "best meets realities on the ground" but
>>>> it's not what is actually in our database:
>>>> See for instance :
>>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.8481/18.8378
>>>> https://framapic.org/kIvnPSllBtnv/h1J8xti7US1F.gif
>>>> Both borders (according to Croatia vs according to Serbia) are mapped.
>>>>
>>>> The same between Soudan and South Soudan:
>>>> https://framapic.org/lcWCkmek7L7i/icYVenvHzPZs.gif
>>>>
>>>> In some places, there are boundary=disputed or dispute=yes on the boundary
>>>> ways, which is very convenient for a map-maker to know that there is a
>>>> dispute on these border and that you may want to render it with a different
>>>> style (or use another source).
>>>> Should this practice be generalized on all disputed borders or at least
>>>> submitted as a proposal ?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Noémie Lehuby
>>>> Qwant Research
>>>>
>>>> ___
>>>> Tagging mailing list
>>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

[marc marc]

it seems to me that there are 2 possible solutions
- put the disputed area in the type=boundary boundary+administrative 
relationship of the 2 countries and put dispute=yes on the way(s) concerned.
- put the disputed area in neither of the two relationships.
this area 'll be a mp, and thus a relation type=boundary 
boundary=disputed make sense.

it should also be ensured that it is a conflict and not simply
an unintentional inconsistency caused by unshared way
where they should have been

Le 12. 11. 18 à 14:21, Noémie Lehuby a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> Any thoughts about this ?
> 
> Should we consider the dispusted=yes tag on boundary ways as a /de 
> facto/ standard and uniformize a few borders ? Should we create a 
> proposal about this tag ?
> The borders data do not fit the doc and the statement from the 
> Foundation and are not really usable right now...
> 
> Noémie Lehuby
> Qwant Research
> 
> Le 26/10/2018 à 20:52, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org a écrit :
>> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:16:20 -0400
>> From: Yuri Astrakhan
>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>>  
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders ?
>> Message-ID:
>>  
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> Another related issue -- maritime disputed borders. In the case of Crimea,
>> the disputed border with Russia is over water, thus not showing clearly in
>> many renderings, and over land with Ukraine, showing as a solid line - thus
>> appearing to side with the Russian interpretation.
>>
>> A while ago Paul Norman wrote osmborder tool to help with the disputed and
>> maritime border rendering [1].  His tool mostly uses disputed=yes . The big
>> problem with rendering was that multiple borders
>> (city/county/state/country) were all overlapping one on top of the other,
>> producing a solid line. Instead, when drawing there should always be just
>> one line with the lowest admin level.
>>
>> [1]:https://github.com/pnorman/osmborder
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:05 PM Noémie Lehuby  wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> There seems to be no actual consensus on the way to map disputed borders.
>>> The statement from the Foundation
>>> <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf>
>>> recommend to map the border that "best meets realities on the ground" but
>>> it's not what is actually in our database:
>>> See for instance :
>>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.8481/18.8378
>>> https://framapic.org/kIvnPSllBtnv/h1J8xti7US1F.gif
>>> Both borders (according to Croatia vs according to Serbia) are mapped.
>>>
>>> The same between Soudan and South Soudan:
>>> https://framapic.org/lcWCkmek7L7i/icYVenvHzPZs.gif
>>>
>>> In some places, there are boundary=disputed or dispute=yes on the boundary
>>> ways, which is very convenient for a map-maker to know that there is a
>>> dispute on these border and that you may want to render it with a different
>>> style (or use another source).
>>> Should this practice be generalized on all disputed borders or at least
>>> submitted as a proposal ?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Noémie Lehuby
>>> Qwant Research
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
> 
> 
> ___
> 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

[Noémie Lehuby]

Hi,

Any thoughts about this ?

Should we consider the dispusted=yes tag on boundary ways as a /de 
facto/ standard and uniformize a few borders ? Should we create a 
proposal about this tag ?
The borders data do not fit the doc and the statement from the 
Foundation and are not really usable right now...


Noémie Lehuby
Qwant Research

Le 26/10/2018 à 20:52, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org a écrit :

Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:16:20 -0400
From: Yuri Astrakhan 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"

Subject: Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders ?
Message-ID:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Another related issue -- maritime disputed borders. In the case of Crimea,
the disputed border with Russia is over water, thus not showing clearly in
many renderings, and over land with Ukraine, showing as a solid line - thus
appearing to side with the Russian interpretation.

A while ago Paul Norman wrote osmborder tool to help with the disputed and
maritime border rendering [1].  His tool mostly uses disputed=yes . The big
problem with rendering was that multiple borders
(city/county/state/country) were all overlapping one on top of the other,
producing a solid line. Instead, when drawing there should always be just
one line with the lowest admin level.

[1]:  https://github.com/pnorman/osmborder

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:05 PM Noémie Lehuby  wrote:


Hello,

There seems to be no actual consensus on the way to map disputed borders.
The statement from the Foundation
<https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf>
recommend to map the border that "best meets realities on the ground" but
it's not what is actually in our database:
See for instance :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.8481/18.8378
https://framapic.org/kIvnPSllBtnv/h1J8xti7US1F.gif
Both borders (according to Croatia vs according to Serbia) are mapped.

The same between Soudan and South Soudan:
https://framapic.org/lcWCkmek7L7i/icYVenvHzPZs.gif

In some places, there are boundary=disputed or dispute=yes on the boundary
ways, which is very convenient for a map-maker to know that there is a
dispute on these border and that you may want to render it with a different
style (or use another source).
Should this practice be generalized on all disputed borders or at least
submitted as a proposal ?

--
Noémie Lehuby
Qwant Research

___
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 ?

[Yuri Astrakhan]

Another related issue -- maritime disputed borders. In the case of Crimea,
the disputed border with Russia is over water, thus not showing clearly in
many renderings, and over land with Ukraine, showing as a solid line - thus
appearing to side with the Russian interpretation.

A while ago Paul Norman wrote osmborder tool to help with the disputed and
maritime border rendering [1].  His tool mostly uses disputed=yes . The big
problem with rendering was that multiple borders
(city/county/state/country) were all overlapping one on top of the other,
producing a solid line. Instead, when drawing there should always be just
one line with the lowest admin level.

[1]:  https://github.com/pnorman/osmborder

On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:05 PM Noémie Lehuby  wrote:

> Hello,
>
> There seems to be no actual consensus on the way to map disputed borders.
> The statement from the Foundation
> 
> recommend to map the border that "best meets realities on the ground" but
> it's not what is actually in our database:
> See for instance :
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.8481/18.8378
> https://framapic.org/kIvnPSllBtnv/h1J8xti7US1F.gif
> Both borders (according to Croatia vs according to Serbia) are mapped.
>
> The same between Soudan and South Soudan:
> https://framapic.org/lcWCkmek7L7i/icYVenvHzPZs.gif
>
> In some places, there are boundary=disputed or dispute=yes on the boundary
> ways, which is very convenient for a map-maker to know that there is a
> dispute on these border and that you may want to render it with a different
> style (or use another source).
> Should this practice be generalized on all disputed borders or at least
> submitted as a proposal ?
>
> --
> Noémie Lehuby
> Qwant Research
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders ?

[Noémie Lehuby]

Hello,

There seems to be no actual consensus on the way to map disputed borders.
The statement from the Foundation 
 
recommend to map the border that "best meets realities on the ground" 
but it's not what is actually in our database:

See for instance :
https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.8481/18.8378
https://framapic.org/kIvnPSllBtnv/h1J8xti7US1F.gif
Both borders (according to Croatia vs according to Serbia) are mapped.

The same between Soudan and South Soudan: 
https://framapic.org/lcWCkmek7L7i/icYVenvHzPZs.gif


In some places, there are boundary=disputed or dispute=yes on the 
boundary ways, which is very convenient for a map-maker to know that 
there is a dispute on these border and that you may want to render it 
with a different style (or use another source).
Should this practice be generalized on all disputed borders or at least 
submitted as a proposal ?


--
Noémie Lehuby
Qwant Research

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