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 proper rendering. We could simply use boundary=administrative for compatibility with current renderers. boundary=political seems to be used for something quite different, but we may consider expanding it to include these territories. On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Fernando Trebien <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 probably should be mapped in some > special way, and not forcibly fitted into other definitions. Such > controversial issues would likely be solved faster by voting than by > subjective fuzzy logic. We could vote if we're going to follow UN > definitions, some other definition, or vote for each particular case > (which may involve a lot of discussion). > > Surely resorting to UN's definitions would be much faster, but not > less controversial. Perhaps we could be conservative, including in the > country itself only the area that is not disputed, then mapping > disputed areas as admin_level=2 entities (as if they were independent) > also adding disputed=yes, and then create a special membership role > (such as "claimed") and use it to add the disputed areas (which may be > relations themselves) to the relations representing the involved > countries. > > On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Jonathan <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 territories are officially recognised by the UN as being under dispute >> but then there are others where the UN recognise one nations claim over >> another's but it has never been enforced. First example that springs to mind >> is the land that Israel has taken from the Palestinians and the UN demand >> that Israel roles back it's current borders. Do we map what is on the >> ground, which seems to be the common argument, or do we map what is widely >> recognised as the official situation? >> >> Sorry for not proffering any answers but more questions ;-) >> >> Jonathan >> >> http://bigfatfrog67.me >> >> >> On 23/12/2013 04:33, Fernando Trebien wrote: >>> >>> 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, Norway and Argentina. >>> >>> Now, the Antarctic Treaty >>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty) does not state that >>> these countries have actual jurisdiction nor sovereignty over these >>> areas (it does not deny it also). Additionally, the wiki says that, >>> for clarity, a country in OSM should be equivalent to an ISO-3166 >>> entity (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Admin_level#National). >>> >>> None of Antartica's claimed territories are ISO-3166 entities (so >>> they're not countries and are probably part of other countries - so >>> far so good), but Antartica is, so Antarctica is a country in OSM - a >>> strange one whose subdivisions do not belong to itself (but that's ok >>> in theory). Oddity aside, I wouldn't worry about adding Chile's and >>> NZ's territories to their countries, but if I added UK's, then it >>> naturally follows that we also would have to add all other British >>> overseas territories to UK - but we can't, because most of them are >>> ISO-3166 entities, therefore, countries. >>> >>> So how do we solve this conundrum fairly? Should we... >>> - add the claimed territories to the respective countries, except UK? >>> - add all claimed territories, but no UK overseas territories besides >>> the Antarctic one? >>> - override the ISO-3166 rule and add overseas territories to UK? >>> - remove claimed territories from the borders of Australia, Norway and >>> Argentina, and perhaps create relations for overseas territories of >>> each of these countries, like they apparently do in France >>> (http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2186658)? >>> >>> I think the last solution may be superior because: >>> - AFAIK no treaty gives sovereignty/jurisdiction/special rights to any >>> of the claiming countries over any of these claimed territories >>> - less confusing (it always seems weird to create exceptions on >>> established patterns), particularly because: >>> --- I believe almost nobody thinks of those territories when thinking >>> of the claiming countries; and >>> --- I think a letter sent to any of these territories wouldn't >>> normally be addressed to Norway, Argentina or Australia >>> - consequently, it may help to avoid future edit wars >>> >>> It may, however, create problems to applications that assume that >>> these areas are states/provinces/etc. of their respective countries. >>> On the other hand, I believe that the impact would be minimal and that >>> many other common things in OSM force programmers to create exceptions >>> in their code more often. >>> >>> What do you think? Am I missing something fundamental? >>> >>> I know I'm meddling in other nations business, but I'm curious since I >>> stumbled upon the problem. >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > > > -- > Fernando Trebien > +55 (51) 9962-5409 > > "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) > "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) -- Fernando Trebien +55 (51) 9962-5409 "The speed of computer chips doubles every 18 months." (Moore's law) "The speed of software halves every 18 months." (Gates' law) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
