Re: [OSM-talk] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries
Thank you, Victor. In fact, that is what I have done in the case of Spain, which did not have properly closed land borders, in the example from the proposal. On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:57 PM Victor Shcherb wrote: > Hi All, > It might sound a bit critical but I believe the ways *without a role * in > admin_level=2 creates more confusion than bring value. > First of all, the biggest value of admin_level=2: > - to identify country as it is in UN > - to have name translated in different languages > - to have extra tags related to the country (probably spoken language or > some details like right/left hand driving) > - define further administrative structure *driven by local country > authorities.* > > I like the idea that Ukraine has a proper admin subdivision for regions > defined by local OSM community and it has Crimea registered with role > "claimed" which is 1) indicative and 2) valuable > > Ways on these relations could be misinterpreted as 1) official boundaries > by UN 2) boundaries that are controlled and patrolled by official army 3) > boundaries "recognized" by OSMF 4) boundaries by constitution of the > country itself . And it creates a mess of interpretation and doesn't help > anybody. > > Another argument that ways of admin_level=2, these enormous relations are > mostly broken and create issues for editing/validating anyway. In theory > the users of admin_level boundaries could use the sum of further > administrative division and subselect proper roles. > > So, I would suggest: > 1) To get rid of non-role member ways from admin_level relation > 2) But keep the ways themselves visible that will represent controlled > boundaries > > Best Regards, > Victor > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 09:33, Roland Olbricht > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> a much simpler approach is to look into the respective constitution. >> >> The Ukrainian constitution defines the state's territory in article 133. >> Other countries, like Germany do so as well, and Ireland does or has >> done so. France does not define its terriotry in the constitution, and >> the UK has AFAIK no constituation. Probably in both countires laws exist. >> >> Thus I suggest to create a relation comprising the regions mentioned in >> that said article. It should hold the various name tags and a distinct >> tag (not "boundary", "admin_level", or "source") to indicate that it is >> a boundary according to the consitution, e.g. >> "legitimation=constitution" (and "legitimation=national_law" if not >> declared by the constitution). Countries where the constitution >> conincides with the de-facto border can just get the tag. >> >> For Cyprus and Western Sahara, I have been unable to find the relevant >> documents. I'm cautiously optimistic that they can be modeled in the >> same way. >> >> Given that there is at most one constiution per country, that those are >> designed to change infrequently and most countries are expected to >> conincide, this allows to add no-nonsense data without opening a can of >> worms. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Roland >> >> ___ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries
Hi All, It might sound a bit critical but I believe the ways *without a role * in admin_level=2 creates more confusion than bring value. First of all, the biggest value of admin_level=2: - to identify country as it is in UN - to have name translated in different languages - to have extra tags related to the country (probably spoken language or some details like right/left hand driving) - define further administrative structure *driven by local country authorities.* I like the idea that Ukraine has a proper admin subdivision for regions defined by local OSM community and it has Crimea registered with role "claimed" which is 1) indicative and 2) valuable Ways on these relations could be misinterpreted as 1) official boundaries by UN 2) boundaries that are controlled and patrolled by official army 3) boundaries "recognized" by OSMF 4) boundaries by constitution of the country itself . And it creates a mess of interpretation and doesn't help anybody. Another argument that ways of admin_level=2, these enormous relations are mostly broken and create issues for editing/validating anyway. In theory the users of admin_level boundaries could use the sum of further administrative division and subselect proper roles. So, I would suggest: 1) To get rid of non-role member ways from admin_level relation 2) But keep the ways themselves visible that will represent controlled boundaries Best Regards, Victor On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 09:33, Roland Olbricht wrote: > Hi all, > > a much simpler approach is to look into the respective constitution. > > The Ukrainian constitution defines the state's territory in article 133. > Other countries, like Germany do so as well, and Ireland does or has > done so. France does not define its terriotry in the constitution, and > the UK has AFAIK no constituation. Probably in both countires laws exist. > > Thus I suggest to create a relation comprising the regions mentioned in > that said article. It should hold the various name tags and a distinct > tag (not "boundary", "admin_level", or "source") to indicate that it is > a boundary according to the consitution, e.g. > "legitimation=constitution" (and "legitimation=national_law" if not > declared by the constitution). Countries where the constitution > conincides with the de-facto border can just get the tag. > > For Cyprus and Western Sahara, I have been unable to find the relevant > documents. I'm cautiously optimistic that they can be modeled in the > same way. > > Given that there is at most one constiution per country, that those are > designed to change infrequently and most countries are expected to > conincide, this allows to add no-nonsense data without opening a can of > worms. > > Best regards, > > Roland > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries
Hi all, a much simpler approach is to look into the respective constitution. The Ukrainian constitution defines the state's territory in article 133. Other countries, like Germany do so as well, and Ireland does or has done so. France does not define its terriotry in the constitution, and the UK has AFAIK no constituation. Probably in both countires laws exist. Thus I suggest to create a relation comprising the regions mentioned in that said article. It should hold the various name tags and a distinct tag (not "boundary", "admin_level", or "source") to indicate that it is a boundary according to the consitution, e.g. "legitimation=constitution" (and "legitimation=national_law" if not declared by the constitution). Countries where the constitution conincides with the de-facto border can just get the tag. For Cyprus and Western Sahara, I have been unable to find the relevant documents. I'm cautiously optimistic that they can be modeled in the same way. Given that there is at most one constiution per country, that those are designed to change infrequently and most countries are expected to conincide, this allows to add no-nonsense data without opening a can of worms. Best regards, Roland ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries
Here's a link to this thread on the Tagging list : https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-November/041109.html And a link to the main Tagging thread that most recently raises this subject: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-November/040858.html And finally a link to the proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 3:21 AM Johnparis wrote: > A general proposal to address mapping disputed borders at the national > level. > > I've read the discussions on the Tagging and Talk lists, and have given > the matter considerable thought (and experimented with different > approaches) before formulating the proposal. I hope it offers a mechanism > to show boundary claims in addition to the current display of de facto > boundaries. > > John > > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
