2010/7/7 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>: > sense. I think in many cases the boundary definition does not exist > independently of the feature.
yes, of course if this is the case (and boundary mapping depends on the feature and not on an import), it is perfectly right to do it, otherwise it's perfectly wrong ;-). Still if the feature (not the mapping representation) changes in real life, the boundary will usually not. To give you an example: the border between Eastern Germany and Poland was after WW II fixed in a treaty in 1950 (Görlitzer Abkommen [1]), later in 1990 confirmed for reunified Germany in the so-called 2+4-treaty. It is true that the treaty first deals in a general manner with the border (the border shall starting from the baltic sea go down the river east of the village xy, ...), but if you then look further (Art. 5, page 7 of the pdf) you will discover, that there is indeed a procedure to fix the exact position: it is marked on the spot. So as I read it, the official border is the marked one, not the description with rivers and villages. > I know both sides to this argument and they have been discussed endlessly. > Both sides have merits. It is good to know both techniques and use them > where they work. Neither technique is superior. +1 cheers, Martin [1] http://download.diplo.de/diplo/1950-07-06%20MFAAVV-I_1-180-182%20G%3frlitzer%20Abkommen.pdf _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
