Am Mo., 22. Okt. 2018 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Yuri Astrakhan < yuriastrak...@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@tutanota.com> > wrote: > >> I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think >> of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two >> relations will overlap. >> >> That is absurd and conflict with OSM rule to map what exists. >> > On the contrary, it actually matches OSM rules better than deciding > yourself. When drawing a city outline, you go to that city's government, > and get the geoshape from them. By extension, if you draw a country, you > should use that country's definition. If two country's definitions happen > to overlap, we ought to document both. > In principle I agree it would be desirable to keep records of "all" claims for a territory, (I can imagine there will be some more rules required, because there are even small groups and individuals claiming authority over territories with very low possibility to be recognized by anyone else, and we might want to exclude those "trolls"). But this should not mean that we do not keep information about who actually controls the territory, and who has claims on it but does not control it. Simply adding a territory to 2 countries at the same time can't be the solution. The complicated part seems to state whose version of the country/border it is. We could have multiple countries for the different possibilities with a tag (or memberships) that says from which country this is (e.g. for the Crimea we would have the borders of Russia and of Ucraine according to the Ucraine and to Russia = 4 versions of the 2 countries). But when those countries have different disputes with different other countries, this could become very complex and unmaintainable. Not sure how to encode for members of a (country)relation that they are the view of a specific country. Maybe it could be achieved with another relation type. Border ways could go into border relations (one or more connected ways) that are part of a border and have tags which say who has recognized them or whose view it is (this could also be done with a role like "according_to" and the country as a member, or a simple tag like according_to=CN). The country relation would be built by referring to those border relations (it would contain all borders and alternative borders, and the parts would have the tag that says according to whom).
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk