After looking at the feedback, I have had a major realization that I think makes the proposal much more viable while not adding innumerable new relations.
Please see: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries#.22Disputed_Area.22_and_.22Zone_of_Control.22 Briefly, the idea is to divide the world into Disputed Areas (with possible subareas of Zones of Control), along with the notion of a "Lesser (countryname)" which can be thought of as a rump version of the country minus all its disputed areas. So, specifically in the case of Crimea, you would have: Disputed Area: Crimea claimed_by: RU;UA acceptance:claim:FR=UA acceptance:claim:PK=neutral acceptance:claim:AF=RU ...etc... Zones of Control: 1 Zone #1 controlled_by=RU The referenced link goes into more detail and provides a simple algorithm for creating maps of the world from different points of view. John On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 1:20 PM Johnparis <[email protected]> wrote: > Thank you for that reference, Marc. > > The blog post you cite deals with the policy and how it is enforced, not > with the question of physical control. The blog acknowledges that Russia > has physical control. > > Let me be clear: this proposal makes NO CHANGES in the existing policy > regarding de facto borders, and makes NO CHANGES in how that policy is > implemented (other than to explicitly tag borders where OSMF has made a > ruling). > > Discussions of the existing policy and its enforcement are therefore not > on topic. I personally have issues with the policy (it has led to, shall we > say, rather "unique" maps in many parts of the world), but those are > properly directed at the OSMF and the DWG. They are not relevant to this > proposal. > > This proposal offers a mechanism, if you will, for the "losing side" in a > ruling by the OSMF to "have its say" on the map. It does not absolve OSMF > from its role in making a ruling. > > The proposal works regardless of how OSMF decides to enforce (or change) > its policy. Hypothetically, OSMF could decide that henceforth, all de facto > borders will be taken from the 1923 Atlas of the World by Encyclopaedia > Britannica. (That would lift one burden from them!) This proposal would > remain the same. > > John > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:20 AM Marc Gemis <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:06 AM Johnparis <[email protected]> wrote:\ >> >> > The question of "physical control" is, I believe, not at issue. The >> fact that Russia exercises physical control is precisely what Ukraine >> objects to. So both sides agree that Russia has physical control of >> Ukraine. But if there were a dispute, again from the proposal: Disputes >> about which claiming entity, if any, exercises control over a particular >> territory can be resolved by the OSM Institutions (meaning the OSMF or the >> DWG). The criterion of "most widely internationally recognised", and how it >> might conflict with the criterion of "best meets realities on the ground", >> is at issue. So the de facto situation remains one that the OSM >> Institutions would have to resolve. When resolved, the de facto border >> would get the "boundary:status=osm_designated" tag, which essentially makes >> it "not subject to change" (by ordinary mappers, anyway). >> >> From https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Kilkenni/diary/47017#comment43421 >> I understand that the notion using "physical control" to define the >> border is the problem. >> >> m. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
