But that proposal intends to encircle disputed territories which is different from specifying disputed parts of otherwise OK boundaries in a normal boundary relation.
I have already considered the impact on current tools and my solution is to introduce a new relation type: boundary=administrative_v2. My idea is that by only getting the boundary relation for India, for example, you are able to create a map similar to the following (imagine without the state borders): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:India-locator-map-blank.svg On 7/22/15, Arch Arch <7h3.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it would be better to create separate relations for disputed > territories instead of introducing new roles. Your approach would break > many existing applications. > > There's already a proposal: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/DisputedTerritories > > Am 21.07.2015 um 16:12 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar: >> My idea is to replace the use of 'inner', 'outer' (and the deprecated >> 'exclave', and 'enclave') roles in a type=boundary relation with >> 'defacto' and 'dejure' (or 'claimed') roles. The 'inner' and 'outer' >> roles are very trivial to compute (assuming a relation is properly >> constructed) and are actually redundant information. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
