Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)
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 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 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,
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)
※ I forgot to mention a few other possible cases of disputed border, for one of them I would use the historical dispute of Sikkim's integration into India as an example, where most countries including India recognized the integration of Sikkin into India and there are also no independent government entity for Sikkim exists after such integration, however countries like China continues to claim there should be an independent country for Sikkim ※ Another case is that, how about an government in exile like historically for various European countries during WWII, especially when they have different claims on territory from existing government of the country, like Free France vs Vichy France? (in both the situation when such government in exile control some overseas territory and also in situation when such government does not control any territory) 在 2019年1月4日週五 20:22，Phake Nick 寫道： > 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 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
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)
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 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* > -
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)
Hi, Graeme, and thanks for the question. As I understand it (from reading the wikipedia article and others), each country controls its territory up to the cease-fire line. The zone is demilitarized, yes, but still policed. And if you cross the line, you'll be stopped by someone from the other side. It's not like the Cyprus buffer zone, for instance, which is patrolled by the UN (and would be tagged controlled_by=UN). So if my reading is correct, the Korean DMZ (two DMZs, actually) would not need a separate controlled_by tag. North Korea (code KP) as a whole (including its DMZ) would be claimed_by=KP;KR + controlled_by=KP. South Korea (code KR) as a whole (including its DMZ) would be claimed_by=KP;KR + controlled_by=KR. Cheers, John On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 10:17 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Amazing effort thanks, John! > > Theoretical question please. > > Would you use this to map the Korean DMZ > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone > > I'd assume > > claimed_by=NK;SK (may be the wrong country codes?) > controlled_by=nobody (or would that also be =NK;SK?) > > Thanks > > Graeme > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)
Amazing effort thanks, John! Theoretical question please. Would you use this to map the Korean DMZ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Demilitarized_Zone I'd assume claimed_by=NK;SK (may be the wrong country codes?) controlled_by=nobody (or would that also be =NK;SK?) Thanks Graeme ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries (Version 1.6)
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
