it seems to me that there are 2 possible solutions - put the disputed area in the type=boundary boundary+administrative relationship of the 2 countries and put dispute=yes on the way(s) concerned. - put the disputed area in neither of the two relationships. this area 'll be a mp, and thus a relation type=boundary boundary=disputed make sense.
it should also be ensured that it is a conflict and not simply an unintentional inconsistency caused by unshared way where they should have been Le 12. 11. 18 à 14:21, Noémie Lehuby a écrit : > Hi, > > Any thoughts about this ? > > Should we consider the dispusted=yes tag on boundary ways as a /de > facto/ standard and uniformize a few borders ? Should we create a > proposal about this tag ? > The borders data do not fit the doc and the statement from the > Foundation and are not really usable right now... > > Noémie Lehuby > Qwant Research > > Le 26/10/2018 à 20:52, [email protected] a écrit : >> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:16:20 -0400 >> From: Yuri Astrakhan<[email protected]> >> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" >> <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders ? >> Message-ID: >> <CAJGfNe86+iRy5dPz6Uhdwzwr==baSBZ0qKS=vubnacybjsz...@mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >> >> Another related issue -- maritime disputed borders. In the case of Crimea, >> the disputed border with Russia is over water, thus not showing clearly in >> many renderings, and over land with Ukraine, showing as a solid line - thus >> appearing to side with the Russian interpretation. >> >> A while ago Paul Norman wrote osmborder tool to help with the disputed and >> maritime border rendering [1]. His tool mostly uses disputed=yes . The big >> problem with rendering was that multiple borders >> (city/county/state/country) were all overlapping one on top of the other, >> producing a solid line. Instead, when drawing there should always be just >> one line with the lowest admin level. >> >> [1]:https://github.com/pnorman/osmborder >> >> On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 12:05 PM Noémie Lehuby<[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> There seems to be no actual consensus on the way to map disputed borders. >>> The statement from the Foundation >>> <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf> >>> recommend to map the border that "best meets realities on the ground" but >>> it's not what is actually in our database: >>> See for instance : >>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/45.8481/18.8378 >>> https://framapic.org/kIvnPSllBtnv/h1J8xti7US1F.gif >>> Both borders (according to Croatia vs according to Serbia) are mapped. >>> >>> The same between Soudan and South Soudan: >>> https://framapic.org/lcWCkmek7L7i/icYVenvHzPZs.gif >>> >>> In some places, there are boundary=disputed or dispute=yes on the boundary >>> ways, which is very convenient for a map-maker to know that there is a >>> dispute on these border and that you may want to render it with a different >>> style (or use another source). >>> Should this practice be generalized on all disputed borders or at least >>> submitted as a proposal ? >>> >>> -- >>> Noémie Lehuby >>> Qwant Research >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
