22. Oct 2018 16:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>:
> Am Mo., 22. Okt. 2018 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Yuri Astrakhan <> > yuriastrak...@gmail.com <mailto:yuriastrak...@gmail.com>> >: > >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <>> >> matkoni...@tutanota.com <mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>>> > wrote: >> >>> >>>> I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think >>>> of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two >>>> relations will overlap. >>> >>> That is absurd and conflict with OSM rule to map what exists. >>> >>> >> On the contrary, it actually matches OSM rules better than deciding >> yourself. When drawing a city outline, you go to that city's government, >> and get the geoshape from them. By extension, if you draw a country, you >> should use that country's definition. If two country's definitions happen >> to overlap, we ought to document both. > > > In principle I agree it would be desirable to keep records of "all" claims > for a territory, (I can imagine there will be some more rules required, > because there are even small groups and individuals claiming authority over > territories with very low possibility to be recognized by anyone else, and we > might want to exclude those "trolls"). But this should not mean that we do > not keep information about who actually controls the territory, and who has > claims on it but does not control it. Simply adding a territory to 2 > countries at the same time can't be the solution. I am not fundamentally opposed to adding various claims to OSM (though I am not supporting it either). But in cases where there is clear who controls given territory main border then main administrative boundary should be applied to line of control.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
