On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 10:00:04PM +0100, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) wrote: > On Mon, 9 Feb 2009 20:44:38 +0100, Jochen Topf <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:24:00PM +0100, Aun Johnsen (via Webmail) > wrote: > >> >> Maritime borders are by their nature different from administrative > >> >> borders on land, so I think that using boundary=maritime rather than > >> >> boundary=administrative maritime=yes (or other suggested options) is > >> >> worthy. > >> > > >> > Why are they different? I don't see that. > >> > > >> > Adding new tags (here boundary=maritime) always has a cost. Every > >> > software that wants to do something with the data has to know about > it. > >> > > >> > Jochen > >> > >> Why should we refuse to add boundary=maritime? Do you have a better > >> suggestion for baseline, contingency zone and exclusive economic zone? > >> And > >> why should the maritime territorial border be trated differently than > the > >> ones I mentioned? Isn't tagging admin_level enough to link it with other > >> national/administrative borders? > > > > Oh, I don't mind how you do baseline, contingency zone and exclusive > > economic zone. The only thing I am saying is that administrative borders > > are the same whether on land or on the sea. So they should be treated > > the same way. And admin_level is not enough in my opinion. The deciding > > tag is boundary=administrative. Well, actually the deciding thing is the > > same tag on the relation. Maybe we should have named it > > administrative_boundary_level=# . Then we'd only have one level. But we > > didn't and there are already many, many boundaries out there tagged > > that way. But you have a point there. Maybe we should just use > > admin_level and ignore the rest? > > > > Jochen > You mean to say that admin_level is ONLY used on boundaries? I have seen at > least a dousin other usages of admin_level. Besides, the way I suggested it
You said above "Isn't tagging admin_level enough to link it with other national/administrative borders?". Now you say they are not? I am confused. > in Proposal 3 allows for clean and simple tagging, and doesn't make it > difficult for rendering software to choose if they want to render maritime > borders or not. The point in tagging maritime borders is to give access to > the information, and that gives reason to clearly differ between borders at > sea and borders at land. Whether there is a difference between them or not > is not up to us, but to those who choose to use the data, and that is > reason enough to tag them different. Yes it can be done by adding > maritime=yes to an administrative border, but I really don't see the point > in treating the territorial border differently than baseline, contingency > zone, eez, and what other maritime borders that we might decide to enter. > If you are not happy with Proposal 3, write your own, you are free to add > it to the rest of the proposals on Maritime Borders. I did. And mentioned it here, didn't I? Jochen -- Jochen Topf [email protected] http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
