Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

[Richard Fairhurst]

Rory McCann wrote:
> Both of the example maps of Russia/Ukraine and India/Pakistan 
> require the use of another data set. Which is a shame. One should 
> be able to generate that from OSM entirely.

Why?

OSM's selling point is not "all geodata, ever, in one place". OSM's selling
point is personally researched data that reflects reality.

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Suggested-way-to-map-disputed-country-borders-tp5873085p5873781.html
Sent from the Tagging mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

[Colin Smale]

I see two parallel subjects here: 

1) how do we represent disputed borders and "different versions of the
truth" in OSM 

2) how do we use that mechanism responsibly 

Whatever criteria are used for 2), the chances are there is always going
to be a need for 1). 

//colin

On 2016-05-19 12:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

> 2016-05-19 11:55 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole :
> 
>> The current mapping of de-facto boundaries of effective control is
>> easily defensible and has a certain logic that even the greatest
>> nationalists typically will accept (that knowing who really controls an
>> area is helpful in avoiding getting killed).
> 
> how would this help in the dispute between Italy and France about where the 
> mountain peak (area) of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco belongs to [1]? Or for 
> offshore areas? Our aim should not be to satisfy officials, but to depict the 
> actual situation. Yes, control of the area is a very good indication where it 
> can be used, but things are not always so clear (areas without effective 
> control by one party do exist).
> 
> Most of the countries are involved in claims of disputed borders? Fine, then 
> it should be mapped like this, even if it doesn't please officials of one 
> country or another.
> 
> cheers, 
> Martin
> 
> [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenzverlauf_auf_dem_Mont_Blanc 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-05-19 11:55 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole :

> The current mapping of de-facto boundaries of effective control is
> easily defensible and has a certain logic that even the greatest
> nationalists typically will accept (that knowing who really controls an
> area is helpful in avoiding getting killed).
>


how would this help in the dispute between Italy and France about where the
mountain peak (area) of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco belongs to [1]? Or for
offshore areas? Our aim should not be to satisfy officials, but to depict
the actual situation. Yes, control of the area is a very good indication
where it can be used, but things are not always so clear (areas without
effective control by one party do exist).

Most of the countries are involved in claims of disputed borders? Fine,
then it should be mapped like this, even if it doesn't please officials of
one country or another.


cheers,
Martin


[1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenzverlauf_auf_dem_Mont_Blanc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

[Simon Poole]

As somebody who regularly has to respond to complaints from officials
and others on boundary matters, I fail to see how mapping additional
borders (and a lot of them, given that there are nearly no countries
without disputes) is going to help. Matter of fact it is guaranteed to
make things worse and at the same time not help with legislation as in
China or proposed in India.

The current mapping of de-facto boundaries of effective control is
easily defensible and has a certain logic that even the greatest
nationalists typically will accept (that knowing who really controls an
area is helpful in avoiding getting killed).

Simply adding 100s if not 1000s of possible variants to OSM proper
(nothing against making them available elsewhere) will simply increase
the pressure from all sides to get their version of reality rendered on
osm.org (and other high profile sites).

Simon


Am 19.05.2016 um 10:05 schrieb Rory McCann:
> On 07/05/16 11:54, Andy Townsend wrote:
>> The problem with answering Rory's original question directly is that in
>> OSM we try and "map what's on the ground", and don't map stuff that's
>> never going to happen (for example, if a village thinks that it'd be
>> really nice if there was a bypass around it, but there's no concrete
>> proposal, no funding and no likelihood of it happening, we don't map
>> that bypass).  A number of territory claims are for national historic
>> pride reasons only and are unlikely ever to result in any changes to
>> actual administrative boundaries*.
> I'm not suggesting mapping every little "someone in $COUNTRY thinks
> $AREA should be in their country", I'm suggesting mapping areas which
> governments claim. Imagine you had to make a map for the government of
> $COUNTRY, and they required the borders to be one way. That's the kind
> of thing that I think should be in OSM. You should be able to use OSM,
> and only OSM, to make a map that is acceptable to any government.
>
> Both of the example maps of Russia/Ukraine and India/Pakistan require
> the use of another data set. Which is a shame. One should be able to
> generate that from OSM entirely.
>
> Rory
>
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-05-19 10:05 GMT+02:00 Rory McCann :

> I'm not suggesting mapping every little "someone in $COUNTRY thinks
> $AREA should be in their country", I'm suggesting mapping areas which
> governments claim. Imagine you had to make a map for the government of
> $COUNTRY, and they required the borders to be one way. That's the kind
> of thing that I think should be in OSM. You should be able to use OSM,
> and only OSM, to make a map that is acceptable to any government.
>


yes, (well, sometimes there might not be a government, or there might be
more than one group claiming power over the same area), still, also those
"official" disputes are not few, there's a lot of them, and we should have
a way to store them in a neutral way (i.e. have all different
claims/versions and let the people using the data decide which one to show).
For reference (might not be complete):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes

Also this might be interesting, but isn't complete (because e.g. Germany
has dispute with the Netherlands about some maritime area, i.e. should be
red as well, but you already see it: almost every country has disputed
borders):
http://metrocosm.com/mapping-every-disputed-territory-in-the-world/

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

[Rory McCann]

On 07/05/16 11:54, Andy Townsend wrote:
> The problem with answering Rory's original question directly is that in
> OSM we try and "map what's on the ground", and don't map stuff that's
> never going to happen (for example, if a village thinks that it'd be
> really nice if there was a bypass around it, but there's no concrete
> proposal, no funding and no likelihood of it happening, we don't map
> that bypass).  A number of territory claims are for national historic
> pride reasons only and are unlikely ever to result in any changes to
> actual administrative boundaries*.

I'm not suggesting mapping every little "someone in $COUNTRY thinks
$AREA should be in their country", I'm suggesting mapping areas which
governments claim. Imagine you had to make a map for the government of
$COUNTRY, and they required the borders to be one way. That's the kind
of thing that I think should be in OSM. You should be able to use OSM,
and only OSM, to make a map that is acceptable to any government.

Both of the example maps of Russia/Ukraine and India/Pakistan require
the use of another data set. Which is a shame. One should be able to
generate that from OSM entirely.

Rory



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2016-05-07 11:54 GMT+02:00 Andy Townsend :

> and it'd be helpful to gather them together.



+1, I started a page but then noticed I didn't have the time to continue,
but it's in the wiki ;-)
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DisputedTerritories

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Il giorno 07 mag 2016, alle ore 11:54, Andy Townsend  ha 
> scritto:
> 
> It can be really difficult to separate loud but unrepresentative voices from 
> the actual situation on the ground.


it's worth mentioning that not all disputed borders are on the ground, some are 
on water. Those on the ground are sometimes on remote or hard to reach places, 
e.g. the summit of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco is disputed between France and 
Italy, but nobody lives there.

I think we should allow for several parallel versions of borders, maybe add 
tags or members for other entities on the same or higher admin level (also e.g. 
UN, even if they don't have an admin level) that support this version. We could 
add a tag (or member?) that says whose version it is, and assume the actually 
depicted entity as the default in absence of the tag. Something like 
boundary:origin=Bundesrepublik Deutschland for the German version of the  
border.


cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

[Andy Townsend]

On 07/05/2016 10:34, Paul Johnson wrote:
On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Rory McCann > wrote:


Hi,

The subject of disputed country borders came up on help.osm.org

again[1], specifically about India and the Kashmir area. There
might be
a way to solve this issue. Currently OSM tags the de facto country
borders. But what if we also mapped the borders of country X according
to country Y?


I've handled this with the long simmering (or is it a pot that's been 
cooking so long everything's burned off and broke the stove at this 
point?) dispute between Canada and Denmark thusly 
.




So there you've got the Canadian border to the north of the island via 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/34315996 and the Greenland border to 
the south of the island via http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/52872490 .  
Where are the bottles of whisky / schnapps that each side leaves for 
each other*?


Cheers,

Andy

* 
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/12/21/canada-and-denmark-keep-relations-warm-in-arctic-island-dispute.html
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

[Andy Townsend]

On 06/05/2016 14:03, Marc Gemis wrote:

there is already a proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/DisputedTerritories

m.



Well, there's a wiki page, but among other things it says "If, you feel 
cappabale to invent a tag system for such purposes, edit this page", so 
it's certainly not a complete proposal yet.


What I suspect would be really useful would be a summary of how people 
handle disputed boundaries in OSM around the world, and the reasoning 
behind what they have done.  Sometimes admin_level=3 is used, sometimes 
it isn't (and confusingly sometimes admin_level=3 is used for 
_non_disputed boundaries elsewhere.


I can try and put together the reasoning behind the current tagging 
where I've been involved on behalf of the Data Working Group, such as 
Kosovo, - giving a summary of the parties involved (often there are more 
than 2 sides to a dispute, and not all of them may be active in OSM), 
the state of the ground itself and how it fits with 
http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf 
, and which of the resulting entities are "countries"** in any normally 
understood sense.


Its also worth mentioning the "International Boundaries" sub-forum 
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=53173 , which is where 
most discussions of this sort of thing take place.  I'd suggest that any 
attempt to fix boundaries should at the very least be mentioned there, 
if only to avoid it getting reverted as suspected vandalism.


Most of the reports that the DWG gets about this sort of thing are 
inherently partisan, as are most of the help questions about it (e.g. 
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/49587/indias-administrative-boundary-issue 
). It can be really difficult to separate loud but unrepresentative 
voices from the actual situation on the ground.


The problem with answering Rory's original question directly is that in 
OSM we try and "map what's on the ground", and don't map stuff that's 
never going to happen (for example, if a village thinks that it'd be 
really nice if there was a bypass around it, but there's no concrete 
proposal, no funding and no likelihood of it happening, we don't map 
that bypass).  A number of territory claims are for national historic 
pride reasons only and are unlikely ever to result in any changes to 
actual administrative boundaries*.  There are various examples of how 
people represent mutually incompatible facts to different groups of 
people - here's one for some areas around Russia 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Zverik/diary/21463 , and here's a 
description of a similar process for India 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/PlaneMad/diary/38176 .  At the data 
level both of these seem to be "get the data fro OSM, munge it in some 
way with some external data, and use that".  I'm sure there are more 
examples, and it'd be helpful to gather them together.


Best Regards,

Andy

* such as 
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/war-of-the-roses-row-erupts-as-yorkshire-688659 
(Saddleworth was historically in Yorkshire in England but is now 
administered from the west rather than the east).  I use Saddleworth as 
an example because (a) I'm from Yorkshire and know something about it 
and (b) it's thankfully less politicised than other similar disputes - 
no one is getting killed.


** there's a famous Frank Zappa quote 
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/frankzappa134155.html . 
Obviously that's fairly flippant, and "needing a beer" works well in 
Western places but less well elsewhere, but some of the questions ("is 
there a national sports body that e.g. organises football matches 
against other national sports bodies?"  "are there companies based there 
that pay taxes and support local infrastructure there") do help define 
what we mean by "country".



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

[Paul Johnson]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 7:35 AM, Rory McCann  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The subject of disputed country borders came up on help.osm.org
> again[1], specifically about India and the Kashmir area. There might be
> a way to solve this issue. Currently OSM tags the de facto country
> borders. But what if we also mapped the borders of country X according
> to country Y?
>

I've handled this with the long simmering (or is it a pot that's been
cooking so long everything's burned off and broke the stove at this point?)
dispute between Canada and Denmark thusly
.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

[Marc Gemis]

there is already a proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/DisputedTerritories

m.

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Rory McCann  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The subject of disputed country borders came up on help.osm.org
> again[1], specifically about India and the Kashmir area. There might be
> a way to solve this issue. Currently OSM tags the de facto country
> borders. But what if we also mapped the borders of country X according
> to country Y?
>
> In this case, you could map "the border of India according to India",
> and "the border of Pakistan according to India", and "the border of
> Pakistan according to Pakistan" and "the border of India according to
> Pakistan". The "border of country X according to country Y" is
> unambiguous, just check what country Y claims.
>
> Then, if someone wants to make a map aimed for country X, we can tell
> them they can just draw "country borders according to country X, and if
> that doesn't exist, use regular borders".
>
> This is similar to multilingual names, where name:YY is "The name of X
> in language YY". One suggested approach to draw maps in another language
> is to load it all in postgres, then do a SQL query to change the names.
> The same approach could work with country border. "Import with
> osm2pgsql, then run this query"
>
> What's the best way to tag this? boundary:claimed=administrative
> admin_level:claimed=2 claimed_by=IN name=Pakistan ISO3166-1=PK for
> "boundary of Pakistan claimed by India"
>
> Having a subkey of boundary=administrative administrative=claimed is
> subpar IMO, because many applications look for boundary=administrative
> admin_level=2 to get all countries, and they would break.
>
> Thoughts? Feedback? Praise?
>
> Rory
>
>
> [1]
> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/49587/indias-administartive-boundary-issue
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Suggested way to map disputed country borders

[Rory McCann]

Hi,

The subject of disputed country borders came up on help.osm.org
again[1], specifically about India and the Kashmir area. There might be
a way to solve this issue. Currently OSM tags the de facto country
borders. But what if we also mapped the borders of country X according
to country Y?

In this case, you could map "the border of India according to India",
and "the border of Pakistan according to India", and "the border of
Pakistan according to Pakistan" and "the border of India according to
Pakistan". The "border of country X according to country Y" is
unambiguous, just check what country Y claims.

Then, if someone wants to make a map aimed for country X, we can tell
them they can just draw "country borders according to country X, and if
that doesn't exist, use regular borders".

This is similar to multilingual names, where name:YY is "The name of X
in language YY". One suggested approach to draw maps in another language
is to load it all in postgres, then do a SQL query to change the names.
The same approach could work with country border. "Import with
osm2pgsql, then run this query"

What's the best way to tag this? boundary:claimed=administrative
admin_level:claimed=2 claimed_by=IN name=Pakistan ISO3166-1=PK for
"boundary of Pakistan claimed by India"

Having a subkey of boundary=administrative administrative=claimed is
subpar IMO, because many applications look for boundary=administrative
admin_level=2 to get all countries, and they would break.

Thoughts? Feedback? Praise?

Rory


[1]
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/49587/indias-administartive-boundary-issue


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging