Hi,
On 07/26/2015 11:43 PM, Eric SIBERT wrote:
> << database. If you are developing editing clients and automated edit
> scripts, this is very useful ...>>>
>
> I did not do a complex thing.
Yeah, you just did "an awful job considering the number of relations
involved" (your words).
Even in the
Le 26/07/2015 03:20, Arch Arch a écrit :
The main server is not for testing. Please use
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sandbox_for_editing instead
<>>
I did not do a complex thing.
I've
The main server is not for testing. Please use
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Sandbox_for_editing instead
I've removed Tromelin from Mauritius relation as this causes rendering
issues: http://i.imgur.com/TZTYlHt.png
Arch
Am 26.07.2015 um 01:02 schrieb Eric SIBERT:
I did some try.
___
I did some try.
* Mont-Blanc area claimed by France and Italy but occupied by nobody.
I have split the boundary into two branches (an awful job considering
the number of administrative relations involved).
I defined an area with:
disputed_area=yes
dispute:claim:FR=yes (area claim by France)
di
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Eric Sibert
wrote:
> I think a good test case for testing if this can handle ongoing and complex
>> conflicts would be Kashmir, as it's currently five-ways disputed between
>> Pakistan, India, China, a Kashmir separatist/freedom/independence
>> movement,
>> and re
I think a good test case for testing if this can handle ongoing and complex
conflicts would be Kashmir, as it's currently five-ways disputed between
Pakistan, India, China, a Kashmir separatist/freedom/independence movement,
and recently displaced-from-Afghanistan irregular Islamic fundamentalist
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Eric Sibert
wrote:
> Overlapping should be the first step to mapping a dispute. Then if you want
>> to add dispute attributes, you could create a new multipolygon with areas
>> in question, and add dispute specific tags, wikidata tags, and similar.
>>
>
> In my pr
Overlapping should be the first step to mapping a dispute. Then if you want
to add dispute attributes, you could create a new multipolygon with areas
in question, and add dispute specific tags, wikidata tags, and similar.
In my previous message, I proposed to create a relation for the
disputed
uto, 21. srp 2015. u 01:33 moltonel 3x Combo napisao
je:
>
> How about:
> * Map each boundary as that boundary's country sees it, allowing
> overlaps. So the France boundary relation is according to France's
> views, and vice-versa for Italy.
>
> +1
Overlapping should be the first step to mapping
Yes, some disputed areas are more stable and, in osm, one may focuses
first on it.
In a lot of cases, there is "de facto" one country administrating the
area. We should use the "de facto" aspect to draw a closed
boundary=administrative.
Then we may add to the relation disputed areas with
> On Jul 21, 2015, at 9:13 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> One thing that perhaps might want to be captured in other disputes is
> what happens when one country actually occupies and controls the
> disputed territory. There, there's a de facto border and a claim.
The Senkaku Island dispute would m
Hi,
On 07/21/2015 11:10 PM, Arch Arch wrote:
> I think it would be better to create separate relations for disputed
> territories instead of introducing new roles. Your approach would break
> many existing applications.
>
> There's already a proposal:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Propo
But that proposal intends to encircle disputed territories which is
different from specifying disputed parts of otherwise OK boundaries in
a normal boundary relation.
I have already considered the impact on current tools and my solution
is to introduce a new relation type: boundary=administrative_
I think it would be better to create separate relations for disputed
territories instead of introducing new roles. Your approach would break
many existing applications.
There's already a proposal:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/DisputedTerritories
Am 21.07.2015 um 16:12
sent from a phone
> Am 21.07.2015 um 16:12 schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar :
>
> My idea is to replace the use of 'inner', 'outer' (and the deprecated
> 'exclave', and 'enclave') roles in a type=boundary relation with
> 'defacto' and 'dejure' (or 'claimed') roles.
these could make sense as tags o
My idea is to replace the use of 'inner', 'outer' (and the deprecated
'exclave', and 'enclave') roles in a type=boundary relation with
'defacto' and 'dejure' (or 'claimed') roles. The 'inner' and 'outer'
roles are very trivial to compute (assuming a relation is properly
constructed) and are actuall
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Eric Sibert
wrote:
> Yes, I started with the easy case where not country is occupying the
> disputed area and both countries agree on the limits of the disputed area.
> There should be a similar case between USA and Canada for islands near
> Vancouver.
Curious i
One thing that perhaps might want to be captured in other disputes is
what happens when one country actually occupies and controls the
disputed territory. There, there's a de facto border and a claim.
Yes, I started with the easy case where not country is occupying the
disputed area and both
moltonel 3x Combo writes:
> How about:
> * Map each boundary as that boundary's country sees it, allowing
> overlaps. So the France boundary relation is according to France's
> views, and vice-versa for Italy.
> * Create a relation containing the boudary relations as members, with
> roles litter
On 20/07/2015, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
> Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 20/07/2015 1:08 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>>> So perhaps a relation that carries the border tag with two ways as
>>> members. The relation would have the boundary tags, and also a disputed
>>> tag of some sort listin
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> writes:
> On 20/07/2015 1:08 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> So perhaps a relation that carries the border tag with two ways as
>> members. The relation would have the boundary tags, and also a disputed
>> tag of some sort listing the set of countries involved in the disp
On 20/07/2015 1:08 AM, Greg Troxel wrote:
Martin Koppenhoefer writes:
sent from a phone
Am 19.07.2015 um 10:38 schrieb Eric SIBERT :
Any suggestion?
it would be nice to have a tag (or maybe relation role) to be
optionally put on admin boundaries which stated according to whom this
was the
Martin Koppenhoefer writes:
> sent from a phone
>
>> Am 19.07.2015 um 10:38 schrieb Eric SIBERT :
>>
>> Any suggestion?
>
> it would be nice to have a tag (or maybe relation role) to be
> optionally put on admin boundaries which stated according to whom this
> was the boundary. This way we coul
sent from a phone
> Am 19.07.2015 um 10:38 schrieb Eric SIBERT :
>
> Any suggestion?
it would be nice to have a tag (or maybe relation role) to be optionally put on
admin boundaries which stated according to whom this was the boundary. This way
we could have different boundaries for the sam
On 19/07/2015 6:38 PM, Eric SIBERT wrote:
Hi folks,
The are many disputed areas in the world but I want to talk about a
specific one : the Mont-Blanc area.
- Near the Mont-Blanc submit, there is a disputed area between France
and Italia.
- Both governments agree that there is a dispute
- Bo
Hi folks,
The are many disputed areas in the world but I want to talk about a
specific one : the Mont-Blanc area.
- Near the Mont-Blanc submit, there is a disputed area between France
and Italia.
- Both governments agree that there is a dispute
- Both governments also decided not to solve th
26 matches
Mail list logo
