In situations like this I'd invite the new mapper to discuss things more
widely (which Colin has already done on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86624359 ) and then revert the
changes pending any discussion here.
The new mapper is already aware of the changeset discussion (they've
replied) so hopefully won't then just change it back.
Best Regards,
Andy
On 15/06/2020 11:17, Gareth L wrote:
Probably? I am not familiar with the disputed territories process for Osm.
It’s a weird one as only the U.K. has claimed sovereignty. Others
don’t accept the claim, but also haven’t made a sovereignty claim
themselves. So at the moment, the U.K. is the administrator - and
there is an absence of any others.
I’d say it should remain mapped as U.K. administrative boundary but
also flagged as disputed.. if that can be done?
Gareth
On 15 Jun 2020, at 10:24, Colin Smale <colin.sm...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
A new mapper has changed the status of Rockall, removing it from the
UK admin boundaries. As I understand it Rockall is accepted as UK
territory although it can't be used as a baseline to extend the EEZ.
I contacted the mapper with a changeset comment and their motivation
is based on "fixing the EEZ".
Wikipedia suggests that Rockall is considered (administratively
speaking) part of the isle of Harris, in the Western Isles.
As Rockall has from time to time been the subject of a territorial
dispute with Ireland, should we use the "disputed territories"
process for Rockall?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/86624359
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
