I see two parallel subjects here:
1) how do we represent disputed borders and "different versions of the
truth" in OSM
2) how do we use that mechanism responsibly
Whatever criteria are used for 2), the chances are there is always going
to be a need for 1).
//colin
On 2016-05-19 12:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2016-05-19 11:55 GMT+02:00 Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch>:
>
>> The current mapping of de-facto boundaries of effective control is
>> easily defensible and has a certain logic that even the greatest
>> nationalists typically will accept (that knowing who really controls an
>> area is helpful in avoiding getting killed).
>
> how would this help in the dispute between Italy and France about where the
> mountain peak (area) of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco belongs to [1]? Or for
> offshore areas? Our aim should not be to satisfy officials, but to depict the
> actual situation. Yes, control of the area is a very good indication where it
> can be used, but things are not always so clear (areas without effective
> control by one party do exist).
>
> Most of the countries are involved in claims of disputed borders? Fine, then
> it should be mapped like this, even if it doesn't please officials of one
> country or another.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> [1] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenzverlauf_auf_dem_Mont_Blanc
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
