Thank you for these examples. I will repost them on the discussion page and
reply there.
Please note a couple of things:
1) This proposal is meant to cover only those things it states as its
intention to cover. For instance, it does not cover EEZ boundaries. I have
offered a couple of
※ I forgot to mention a few other possible cases of disputed border, for
one of them I would use the historical dispute of Sikkim's integration into
India as an example, where most countries including India recognized the
integration of Sikkin into India and there are also no independent
I think there are some cases that might not be sufficiently covered by the
current proposal and it might be a good idea to explain how they can be
tagged in example section of the proposal if they can be represented by it:
* Minamitorishima, where it is undoubtably a Japanese natural feature,
Hi, Graeme, and thanks for the question. As I understand it (from reading
the wikipedia article and others), each country controls its territory up
to the cease-fire line. The zone is demilitarized, yes, but still policed.
And if you cross the line, you'll be stopped by someone from the other
Amazing effort thanks, John!
Theoretical question please.
Would you use this to map the Korean DMZ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone
I'd assume
claimed_by=NK;SK (may be the wrong country codes?)
controlled_by=nobody (or would that also be =NK;SK?)
Thanks
Graeme
I have just posted version 1.6 of my proposal on mapping disputed
boundaries. It tightens the definition of the "controlled by" tag in an
effort to improve verifiability.
*Changelog*
- *Version 1.6*
- Defining terms for "controlled_by" tag to improve verifiability.
- *Version 1.5.1*
