Thank you for this thoughtful analysis, Fredrik.
I will be incorporating many of these ideas in version 1.4. For one of
them, the minimal boundary, I realized that it wasn't necessary, because it
duplicates a zone of control. I came to this conclusion after your wrote
your email but before I read
Hi,
so I've read the proposals that are on the table for the first time now.
I wasn't sure at first whether your proposal would break existing tools
that only look at boundary=administrative but I see from the discussion
page that you understand it is important to keep things working. It
would be
Thanks, Andy. I replied to some of your comments (which I also copied to
the proposal's discussion page).
So far as I know you're the first to publicly question the use of land
boundaries, but as I fully believe in Keep It Simple, I'm happy to do that.
It's not a major change, though I will probab
On 05/12/2018 18:52, Johnparis wrote:
I have just posted another revised version of my proposal on mapping
disputed boundaries.
It greatly simplifies the tagging and relation structure.
One thing that would be really helpful would be to summarise those
changes somewhere. There's a whole pag
I have just posted another revised version of my proposal on mapping
disputed boundaries.
It greatly simplifies the tagging and relation structure.
Thanks to everyone who gave public and private feedback. I've archived some
of the comments that are no longer applicable.
The proposal is here:
htt
