Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> writes: > sent from a phone > >> Am 19.07.2015 um 10:38 schrieb Eric SIBERT <[email protected]>: >> >> Any suggestion? > > it would be nice to have a tag (or maybe relation role) to be > optionally put on admin boundaries which stated according to whom this > was the boundary. This way we could have different boundaries for the > same territory, each version with a reference to the country > advocating the version. Maybe the presence of this tag/role would also > be defined as declaring a dispute (i.e. it would be wrong to put it on > undisputed borders). > > AFAIK, today this is already done, but in freetext (key note or > description) and not in a machine readable form.
I concur. I was wondering about something perhaps a bit more complicated, which is to have multiple borders to denote the undisputed and disputed areas. Imagine country A on the left and B on the right. At far left, A and B agree that you are in A. Then there is a border between agreed-A and region that A and B claim. And then another border between the dual-claim region and area that both agree are in B. So perhaps a relation that carries the border tag with two ways as members. The relation would have the boundary tags, and also a disputed tag of some sort listing the set of countries involved in the dispute. Then each member way has a tag of which country (countries really, but only those adjacent) thinks that way is the border. We could require that the ways making up the relation make up a closed area, This could get tricky for 3-way or more situations, but it seems reasonably straightforward for the described case.
pgpbWgeju8kZe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
