That's what I thought, thank you.
In principle, if Antarctic territories' status is said to be only "claimed"
(as described by the Antarctic Treaty), they can't be considered "de
facto", therefore they shouldn't currently be specified as members of the
boundary relations of Norway, Australia and A
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 8:42 AM, Fernando Trebien <
fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Makes sense. But is this practice (of using "dejure" and "defacto" roles)
> already being adopted widely? If so, isn't it breaking compatibility with
> many apps (for instance, Mapnik, but probably others too)
Makes sense. But is this practice (of using "dejure" and "defacto" roles)
already being adopted widely? If so, isn't it breaking compatibility with
many apps (for instance, Mapnik, but probably others too)?
On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 26.12.2013 17:59, Fe
Hi,
On 26.12.2013 17:59, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> So I see 2 reasonably equivalent solutions at the moment that would
> affect the roles of boundary relations: "dejure" and "defacto" roles
We don't usually map "de jure" if there is a conflicting "de facto",
which would take precedence according
For the sake of simplicity, you're right. To represent these territories
using regions, we'd need tags that would essentially duplicate the meaning
of existing ones.
So I see 2 reasonably equivalent solutions at the moment that would affect
the roles of boundary relations: "dejure" and "defacto" r
On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Fernando Trebien <
fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Or, disputed territories wouldn't even have an admin_level tag and
> would be mapped as regions (which always seemed to me as a generic
> "fallback" for things that do not fit a specific standard):
> http://w
