Re: [talk-ph] Treaty of Paris boundary

2013-11-05 Thread Eugene Alvin Villar
Hi everyone,

I'd like to bump up this topic.

Basically, I would like to suggest that we remove the
boundary=administrative and admin_level=2 tag from this boundary. (The
boundary data itself remains, but not the tags marking it as a country
boundary.)

Here are my reasons:

1. I couldn't find the legal basis for the northern treaty limit. The
original 1898 treaty says the limit is 20°N but this excludes Batanes. Also
the 1900 treaty does not give any coordinates.

2. The treaty limit includes the island of Palmas/Miangas which has been
determined by an international court to be part of Indonesia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_Palmas_Case

3. Removing the tags will not affect the country since we already have
another boundary=administrative + admin_level=2 polygon marking the
country's territorial sea under the UNCLOS.

What do you all think?



On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar sea...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hi guys,

 I guess all of you know about the treaty limits boundary of the
 Philippines. This was derived from 3 documents:

 1. 1898 Treaty of 
 Parishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281898%29(full
 text https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281898%29)

 2. 1900 Treaty of 
 Washingtonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Washington_(1900)

 3. 1930 Convention Between the United States and Great 
 Britainhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Between_the_United_States_and_Great_Britain_%281930%29

 The question is, where the heck did we arrive at setting the northern
 treaty limit at somewhere around 21.5°N? Looking at all 3 documents, the
 closest thing we have is the 1898 treaty which says A line running from
 west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude. 20°N
 is a far cry from 21.5°N. Note that the 20°N latitude actually excludes
 Batanes and thus this was corrected by the 1900 treaty. However this 2nd
 treaty does not say anything about moving any boundary lines but only says
 that Philippine islands outside the 1898 boundary lines that were
 controlled by Spain are given to the United States.

 So what gives?


___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph


[talk-ph] Treaty of Paris boundary

2013-07-29 Thread Eugene Alvin Villar
Hi guys,

I guess all of you know about the treaty limits boundary of the
Philippines. This was derived from 3 documents:

1. 1898 Treaty of
Parishttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281898%29(full
text https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281898%29)

2. 1900 Treaty of
Washingtonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Washington_(1900)

3. 1930 Convention Between the United States and Great
Britainhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Between_the_United_States_and_Great_Britain_%281930%29

The question is, where the heck did we arrive at setting the northern
treaty limit at somewhere around 21.5°N? Looking at all 3 documents, the
closest thing we have is the 1898 treaty which says A line running from
west to east along or near the twentieth parallel of north latitude. 20°N
is a far cry from 21.5°N. Note that the 20°N latitude actually excludes
Batanes and thus this was corrected by the 1900 treaty. However this 2nd
treaty does not say anything about moving any boundary lines but only says
that Philippine islands outside the 1898 boundary lines that were
controlled by Spain are given to the United States.

So what gives?
___
talk-ph mailing list
talk-ph@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ph