Thank you, Victor. In fact, that is what I have done in the case of Spain, which did not have properly closed land borders, in the example from the proposal.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:57 PM Victor Shcherb <victor.shch...@osmand.net> wrote: > Hi All, > It might sound a bit critical but I believe the ways *without a role * in > admin_level=2 creates more confusion than bring value. > First of all, the biggest value of admin_level=2: > - to identify country as it is in UN > - to have name translated in different languages > - to have extra tags related to the country (probably spoken language or > some details like right/left hand driving) > - define further administrative structure *driven by local country > authorities.* > > I like the idea that Ukraine has a proper admin subdivision for regions > defined by local OSM community and it has Crimea registered with role > "claimed" which is 1) indicative and 2) valuable > > Ways on these relations could be misinterpreted as 1) official boundaries > by UN 2) boundaries that are controlled and patrolled by official army 3) > boundaries "recognized" by OSMF 4) boundaries by constitution of the > country itself . And it creates a mess of interpretation and doesn't help > anybody. > > Another argument that ways of admin_level=2, these enormous relations are > mostly broken and create issues for editing/validating anyway. In theory > the users of admin_level boundaries could use the sum of further > administrative division and subselect proper roles. > > So, I would suggest: > 1) To get rid of non-role member ways from admin_level relation > 2) But keep the ways themselves visible that will represent controlled > boundaries > > Best Regards, > Victor > > On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 09:33, Roland Olbricht <roland.olbri...@gmx.de> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> a much simpler approach is to look into the respective constitution. >> >> The Ukrainian constitution defines the state's territory in article 133. >> Other countries, like Germany do so as well, and Ireland does or has >> done so. France does not define its terriotry in the constitution, and >> the UK has AFAIK no constituation. Probably in both countires laws exist. >> >> Thus I suggest to create a relation comprising the regions mentioned in >> that said article. It should hold the various name tags and a distinct >> tag (not "boundary", "admin_level", or "source") to indicate that it is >> a boundary according to the consitution, e.g. >> "legitimation=constitution" (and "legitimation=national_law" if not >> declared by the constitution). Countries where the constitution >> conincides with the de-facto border can just get the tag. >> >> For Cyprus and Western Sahara, I have been unable to find the relevant >> documents. I'm cautiously optimistic that they can be modeled in the >> same way. >> >> Given that there is at most one constiution per country, that those are >> designed to change infrequently and most countries are expected to >> conincide, this allows to add no-nonsense data without opening a can of >> worms. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Roland >> >> _______________________________________________ >> talk mailing list >> talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
