I guess they can be edited then. All I did so far was convert them into
multipolygons and merge any overlapping lines. (I can only do this edit 2
days from now, so if you wish you can go ahead).
In fact, the original polygons extended all the way to 89.999 S,
causing bugs in JOSM. I brought th
I don't want to unnecessarily add to this already lengthy thread but the
most visible error in the Antarctica boundaries in my opinion is that
they go to 60°S latitude. This is wrong both in terms of the Antarctic
Treaty (which specifically excludes the 'high seas') and in terms of
individual
Hm I don't believe these people are reading our discussion. I'll try to
track down their usernames among the dozens of changesets and contact them.
Perhaps it would also be a good idea to involve the whole community of
these countries (by posting a short call to talk-ar, talk-no and talk-au),
both
Hi,
On 27.12.2013 02:46, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> 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
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
I'm also hesitant to bring apps to the discussion, since we don't tag
for apps, but things like Nominatim (a fundamental piece of the
ecosystem) have been around for a long time and I doubt something much
different will emerge. One could bring satellite navigation apps into
the discussion and the l
First of all I think there is no really perfect solution to the problem. To
me this is inherent to the dispute as different parties have a different
view of what's right and wrong. So I think this conflict will show up in
the data anyway.
2013/12/23 Fernando Trebien
> Today, from a practical pe
There's some related discussion on the Talk:Tag:boundary=adminstrative wiki
page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:boundary=administrative#Disputed_borders
A suggestion is to replace the 'inner' and 'outer' relation roles (which is
trivial to determine) with roles that specify the claim
If I were doing the map of that region and had to explain to Sudanese
and South-Sudanese my decision, I'd either add both borders (your
suggestion), or create a special entity (my suggestion). But for those
who are not involved in the conflict, is the area part of Sudan or
South-Sudan? I guess they
Am 23.12.2013 11:56, schrieb Jonathan:
I am not qualified to answer any of these questions as I've never got
involved in editing boundaries in OSM however it does raise an
interesting wider question, which is, how do we map all territories
that are claimed by one country or another but not inter
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://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dregion
The boundary lines would still need boundary=* for
I gave it some more thought and I think it may be best for the
community to abstain from such disputes (otherwise we would be dragged
into them). The fact that we refer to them in a special way
linguistically (calling them "disputed territories" or "territorial
claims") means to me that they probab
I am not qualified to answer any of these questions as I've never got
involved in editing boundaries in OSM however it does raise an
interesting wider question, which is, how do we map all territories that
are claimed by one country or another but not internationally recognised?
Some territori
Hello everyone,
I'm not sure if I should post this question here. If not, please point
me in a better direction.
I was optimizing some boundaries in Antarctica and then realized some
countries had included as part of their country borders their claimed
territories in Antarctica, namely: Australia
19 matches
Mail list logo
