Rory, thanks for tackling this. You might want to re-upload your proposal to the wiki, as it does appear to be borked at the moment.
I think we should not store undisputed territories in the same relation as the disputed ones. Lets just store the disputed regions as individual relations, e.g. Kurill's islands, Kosovo, Crimea, etc., and each of them will have two or more "claimed_by_XX" tags. Crimea for example would have "claimed_by_RU=AM;BE;..." (alphabetized), and "claimed_by_UE=*". The * means everyone else who is not listed in the other "claimed_by_...". This way the list is small enough to be manageable, and we do not have hundreds of yes/no flags. This will make it very easy to consume, by simply subtracting disputed territories from the official country's claims based on the target audience. Example: drawing a map of Europe for someone in France would draw Ukraine without alterations (FR is part of the "claimed_by_UE=*" wildcard), and Russia as "Russia minus Crimea" because FR is not listed in the "claimed_by_RU" tag. On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 4:43 PM 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
