I guess they can be edited then. All I did so far was convert them into
multipolygons and merge any overlapping lines. (I can only do this edit 2
days from now, so if you wish you can go ahead).
In fact, the original polygons extended all the way to 89.999 S,
causing bugs in JOSM. I brought th
I don't want to unnecessarily add to this already lengthy thread but the
most visible error in the Antarctica boundaries in my opinion is that
they go to 60°S latitude. This is wrong both in terms of the Antarctic
Treaty (which specifically excludes the 'high seas') and in terms of
individual
Hm I don't believe these people are reading our discussion. I'll try to
track down their usernames among the dozens of changesets and contact them.
Perhaps it would also be a good idea to involve the whole community of
these countries (by posting a short call to talk-ar, talk-no and talk-au),
both
Hi,
On 27.12.2013 02:46, Fernando Trebien wrote:
> In principle, if Antarctic territories' status is said to be only
> "claimed" (as described by the Antarctic Treaty), they can't be
> considered "de facto", therefore they shouldn't currently be specified
> as members of the boundary relations of
