On 20/07/2015 1:08 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
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.
I'd use the tag
source= ?
That does simply state the source of the information... why add another tag
that does the same thing?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
