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 Norway, Australia and Argentina > using an "outer" role (as they are right now), right?
I find it strange that they are but obviously at least one person thought it would be a good idea or else they wouldn's. Is that person "in the loop" here, or are we discussing their mapping without them knowing? Having remote overseas bits and pieces included in a country relation makes some things difficult. The boundary of France seems to exist twice - once in a simple multipolygon-like boundary relation with one outer ring for the mainland and one for Corse, which is what one would more or less expect: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1403916 and then there's another nice hierarchical construct which is more correct but likely less usable, which includes, through indirection, all the overseas bits and pieces that France has accumulated over the centuries: http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2202162 Maybe this could be the way to go for other countries too - have one relation that for most intents and purposes is "the boundary" but have another one that collects their various claims and overseas territories. There's also the case of some territories technically belonging to one country but on a 100-year lease to another country and where that other country's law applies and so on. I guess we must make room in OSM for those who want to model such details, without making things unusable for the majority. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
