Thank you for these examples. I will repost them on the discussion page and reply there.
Please note a couple of things: 1) This proposal is meant to cover only those things it states as its intention to cover. For instance, it does not cover EEZ boundaries. I have offered a couple of suggestions already on possible extensions, and if you think others are warranted, please feel free to propose any. 2) I am not an expert. The proposal is meant to provide objective standards for someone on the ground who can evaluate his or her observations and tag the reality correctly. If I offer an opinion on how to tag something, it is based only on my limited knowledge; there are not a lot of these places that I have personally visited. Thanks, John On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 1:24 PM Phake Nick <c933...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think there are some cases that might not be sufficiently covered by the > current proposal and it might be a good idea to explain how they can be > tagged in example section of the proposal if they can be represented by it: > * Minamitorishima, where it is undoubtably a Japanese natural feature, > however there are dispute on the nature of the island, which affect whether > Japan is able to enjoy 200nm EEZ from the feature. > * Southern Sakhalin and Northern/Central Kuril Islands, where it is de > facto controlled by Russia, and Japan have already renounced their right > there, however Japanese government insist the ownership of these > territories are not determined yet. > * Sub-national disputed boundaries, for instance the recent city-level > dispute between Hong Kong and Shenzhen over the Sha Tau Kok River > * Different active level of claims for different parties, for instance > Republic of China (Taiwan) still haven't renounced their claim on part of > Russian and Myanmar territories, yet it doesn't seems right to list them as > a party in territorial dispute between China (Mainland) and other > surrounding countries on the same level as PRC itself > * Other different types of claim, for instance the 9-dotted lines which > China claims "historical right" within the line > * The proposal supported by various governments around the world to turn > Jerusalem into a corpus separatum > * Dispute between a national government and a sub-national entity, for > example dispute between Somaliland and Puntland, where according to my > understanding Somaliland is an unrecognized country while Puntland is an > autonomous regional government that is intended to be part of Somalia. > * Dispute between regional government and their national government, for > instance disputed in area for Kurdish autonomous region in Afghanistan > * Some special situation about United States - should Wake Island be > controlled by US or UM (US Minority outlying islands)? > * Guantanamo Bay, where the controlling country (or force) doesn't claim > the area but continues to control it anyway > > > It would be nice if the proposal can be extended to cover them. > > Also, among the existing list of example, for Shebaa Farms, the > claimed_by=* should also include Syria. For Israel-Palestine dispute, it > should also separately list out Area A/B/C for West Bank as each of them > have different status. > > 在 2019年1月2日週三 16:18，Johnparis <ok...@johnfreed.com> 寫道： > >> I have just posted version 1.6 of my proposal on mapping disputed >> boundaries. It tightens the definition of the "controlled by" tag in an >> effort to improve verifiability. >> >> *Changelog* >> >> - *Version 1.6* >> - Defining terms for "controlled_by" tag to improve verifiability. >> - *Version 1.5.1* >> - Adding role de_facto for boundary relations in Conflict Areas. >> - *Version 1.5* >> - Eliminating Zones of Control as concept. >> - Permitting claimed_by and controlled_by tags to be placed >> directly on administrative boundary relations, eliminating those >> (now >> redundant) Zones of Control >> - Other Zones of Control become Boundary Claim relations. >> - *Version 1.4.2* >> - Changing Crimea example to conform to current administrative >> boundary. >> - *Version 1.4.1* >> - Changing "all" keyword to a list for the value of the >> "controlled_by" tag. >> - Adding "UN" as a special value for the "controlled_by" tag. >> - *Version 1.4* >> - Using maritime boundaries instead of land boundaries >> - Eliminating redundant or unneeded relations: >> - De facto relation is eliminated; it is now the same as the >> existing administrative boundary >> - Minimal boundary is eliminated; it is now a Zone of Control >> with role "undisputed" in Master Claim >> - Master Claims and Zones of Control are eliminated when not >> needed, such as for countries with no disputes >> - Conflict Areas are explicitly made optional >> - Roles in Master Claim now differentiate how claimant and zone >> are related: undisputed, joint, de facto, claimed >> - Describing administered territories >> - Adding how to change the criteria for the List of Claiming >> Entities >> - *Version 1.3* >> - Possible extensions page added >> - Flattening the hierarchy by removing Disputed and Undisputed >> Areas >> - Three Boundary Relations: de facto, master, minimal >> - All Zones of Control have the role zone in the three Boundary >> Relations >> - Eliminating Lines of Control >> - Country code tag introduced >> - *Version 1.2* >> - Removing "according_to" tags >> - Adding Zones of Control and Lines of Control >> - Adding Disputed Areas and Undisputed Areas >> - Using type=land_area + land_area=administrative >> - Full country relations are no longer members of each other. >> - *Version 1.1* >> - Adding "according_to" tag for relations >> - *Version 1.0* >> - Initial proposal. >> - Land-based borders only; no maritime claims. >> - De facto and claimed borders and roles >> - List of Claiming Entities >> - OSM-designated borders >> - Claimed border relation becomes a member of the De Facto border >> relation, and vice versa >> >> I welcome feedback (public or private) on the new Resolution Period idea >> for the "controlled by" tag -- the notion itself, and the length of the >> period. >> >> I've archived some of the comments that are no longer applicable. >> >> The proposal is here: >> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries >> >> John >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
