This proposal has several problems: 1) Too many new relations, up to 180 per border or whatever the number of independent states has reached.
2) OSM is for “real, current” data - Claimed borders are not real. - Many old claims have never been officially surrendered 3) “Don’t map your local legislation” - legislation in country X has no jurisdiction in country Y These last two points are in the good mapping practice wiki page and 2) is on the main page for new mappers On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 6:43 AM Rory McCann <r...@technomancy.org> wrote: > This is my suggestion for how to map disputed/claimed borders. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/ClaimedBorders > (but I appear to have broken the wiki). > > This proposal is simple. Map the claimed border of a country according > to another country as another regular {{Tag|type|boundary}} relation, > but add {{Tag|boundary|claimed_administrative}} + > {{Tag|claimed:admin_level||2}} (since we're nearly always dealing with > countries) Add the regular tags for a boundary relation (e.g. > {{Tag|ISO3166-1}}, {{Tag|name}}). > > Then add {{Tag|according_to:XX||yes/no}} for each country that does or > doesn't claims this is the border of the subject country. If > {{Tag|according_to:XX}} is missing for an object, the value should be > assumed to be "yes" if this is {{Tag|boundary|administrative}}, and "no" > if it's {{Tag|boundary|claimed_administrative}}. > > == Examples == > > === Kosovo === > > {{Wikipedia|en|Kosovo|text=no}} has been > {{Wikipedia|en| > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Kosovo > }} recognised by about half the members of the UN, since it is de > facto acting as a country, it's mapped in OSM {{relation|2088990}}, as > {{Tag|boundary|administative}}+{{Tag|admin_level||2}}. Kosovo was part > of Serbia, which is {{relation|1741311}}, and also > {{Tag|boundary|administative}}+{{Tag|admin_level||2}}. Serbia & Spain > don't recognise Kosovo, so I presume they view the border of "Serbia" to > be the land covered by {{relation|2088990}}+{{relation|1741311}}. We can > map this by copying the Serbia relation ({{relation|1741311}}), and > changing the members to include the larger area, then add > > {{Tag|type|boundary}}+{{Tag|boundary|claimed_administrative}}+{{Tag|claimed:admin_level||2}}+{{Tag|ISO3166-1||RS}}+{{Tag|according_to:RS||yes}}+{{Tag|according_to:ES||yes}}. > > We can add {{Tag|according_to:XK||yes}} to the Kosovo relation, since > (IIRC) the de facto border is what the government there claims as the > border. We can add {{Tag|according_to:RS||no}} to the Serbia relation, > which means "This is the de facto border of Serbia, and they claim it's > not the border, and the UK claims it is, and Mexico claims it isn't". > > === Crimea === > > Left as an exercise for the reader. > > === Kashmir === > > (Correct me if I'm wrong) {{Wikipedia|en|Kashmir conflict}} is mostly a > dispute between India and Pakistan, but China has claims on some parts. > Neither India or Pakistan control all of what they claim. (i) The de > facto border of India, (ii) The de facto border of Pakistan (current OSM > countries), (iii) The borders of India according to India, (iv) The > borders of Pakistan accroding to India, (v) The borders of Pakistan > according to Pakistan, (vi) The borders of India according to Pakistan. > > Each of these 6 options would be mapped with a separate relation. > > == Advantages == > > * Copies the same logic from multipolygons, being supported by > * 100% backwards compatible with existing scheme to map countries > * Easily readable tags that data consumers can probably deduce. > > == Disadvantages == > > * Creates more relations, several extra per disputed area. This could be > unwieldy an could lead to data consistancies > > == Using the data == > > === Rendering a Map === > > To render a map of the world with the Serbian view of borders, you > import the data with `osm2pgsql`, then run a SQL query like: > > DELETE FROM planet_osm_polygon WHERE boundary = 'administrative' AND > 'admin_level'='2' AND tags->'claimed:by:RS' = 'no', > UPDATE planet_osm_polygon SET admin_level = '2', boundary = > 'administrative' WHERE boundary = 'claimed_administrative' AND > 'claimed_admin_level'='2' AND tags->'claimed:by:RS' = 'yes', > > or an SQL VIEW could be used. > > (Or adjust your map style appropriately to look at the > {{Tag|according_to:XX}} tag, with a reasonable default). > > === Data analysis === > > With an osm2pgsql database, you can see what areas are claimed by > country X, but not de facto controlled by it. > > == See also == > > * [[Proposed features/Mapping disputed boundaries]] > * [[Proposed_features/DisputedTerritories|Previous (abandoned) > proposal]] on mapping disputed territories. > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging