(Some of this is on the wiki)
On 28/11/2018 06:39, Johnparis wrote:
I don't think the notion of "according_to" is viable unless it is
restricted to the two disputing parties. (Three-way disputes can be
simplified into three two-way disputes.)
This is why I like according_to:XX=yes/no. It
Thanks for this, Rory. I'll add it as a comment to the active proposal (
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries
).
I don't think the notion of "according_to" is viable unless it is
restricted to the two disputing parties. (Three-way disputes can be
On 27/11/2018 23:01, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
This proposal has several problems:
1) Too many new relations, up to 180 per border or whatever the number
of independent states has reached.
It's a concern (I've made similar points about languages in the past)
but in this case I don't think that
Rory, thanks for tackling this. You might want to re-upload your proposal
to the wiki, as it does appear to be borked at the moment.
I think we should not store undisputed territories in the same relation as
the disputed ones. Lets just store the disputed regions as individual
relations, e.g.
This proposal has several problems:
1) Too many new relations, up to 180 per border or whatever the number of
independent states has reached.
2) OSM is for “real, current” data
- Claimed borders are not real.
- Many old claims have never been officially surrendered
3) “Don’t map your local
This is my suggestion for how to map disputed/claimed borders.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ClaimedBorders
(but I appear to have broken the wiki).
This proposal is simple. Map the claimed border of a country according
to another country as another regular
