On 26/11/2018 11:24, Peter Elderson wrote:
The whole thing seems pretty shaky to me.
That's unfortunately as true in the physical world as it is in OSM.
... and Paul Norman's "osmborder" (mentioned by Noémie previously) is a
huge start - you get a list of boundary segments classified accordi
The whole thing seems pretty shaky to me.
Op ma 26 nov. 2018 om 11:46 schreef Andy Townsend :
> On 26/11/2018 08:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >> On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar
> wrote:
> >>
> >> We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a type=boundary
> relation
On 26/11/2018 08:35, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a type=boundary relation to store information
about claimed, "de facto", and "de jure" borders
can you give a definition for de jure?
Wh
On 26/11/2018 09:49, Warin wrote:
Where the two boundaries use the same way - simple - no problem.
Where they differ? The choices are then available and could be left to
the renders rather than OSM?
Too simple?
It depends what problem you're trying to solve. If you're just trying
to creat
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 5:44 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> Am Mo., 26. Nov. 2018 um 10:34 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar <
> sea...@gmail.com>:
>
>> can you give a definition for de jure?
>>
>>> Which law applies?
>>>
>>
>> Maybe there is a better word or phrase than "de jure" but I would
>> c
To me "agreed" seems better than "confirmed" (/and other possibilities could be
"recognized" or "accepted"/) , but... do we really need to find an adjective
qualifying such borders? I guess they represent the vast majority of
boundaries, so we could just leave them alone and just qualify anomalo
On 26/11/18 20:32, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar mailto:sea...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a
Am Mo., 26. Nov. 2018 um 10:34 Uhr schrieb Eugene Alvin Villar <
sea...@gmail.com>:
> can you give a definition for de jure?
>
>> Which law applies?
>>
>
> Maybe there is a better word or phrase than "de jure" but I would classify
> these as borders where both countries are in agreement because of
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
> > On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> >
> > We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a type=boundary
> relation to store information about claimed, "de facto", and "de jure"
> borders
>
> can you give a
sent from a phone
> On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>
> We should be therefore able to repurpose the roles in a type=boundary
> relation to store information about claimed, "de facto", and "de jure" borders
can you give a definition for de jure?
Which law applies?
Che
7;s drawing.
My question is all about that: do we consider this as a good practice
? Is it ok if I add disputed=yes all over the Croatia / Serbia way
borders ?
I hope it helps clarify the purpose ;)
Noémie Lehuby
Qwant Research
Le 13/11/2018 à 21:37, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org a écrit :
Fr
On 23/11/2018 16:33, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:30 PM SelfishSeahorse
mailto:selfishseaho...@gmail.com>> wrote:
1. 'inner' roles (and thus 'outer' roles too) are still needed in
case a country has enclaves.
Even if a country has exclaves and/or has enclaves w
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 17:35, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:30 PM SelfishSeahorse
> wrote:
>>
>> 1. 'inner' roles (and thus 'outer' roles too) are still needed in case a
>> country has enclaves.
>
>
> Even if a country has exclaves and/or has enclaves within it, you s
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 5:30 PM SelfishSeahorse
wrote:
> 1. 'inner' roles (and thus 'outer' roles too) are still needed in case a
> country has enclaves.
>
Even if a country has exclaves and/or has enclaves within it, you still
don't need to have "inner" and "outer" roles at all in order to make
From: Andy Townsend
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disputed borders
Message-ID: <15a1ece6-b10a-59d4-528b-d5b47ed44...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
On 12/11/2018 13:21, Noémie Lehuby wrote:
Should
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 16:57, Martin Koppenhoefer
wrote:
>
> I can understand de facto and claimed, but I find de jure hard. Which law do
> you apply? There is international law, customary international law ok, but if
> the country doesn’t consent to certain ideas, e.g. doesn’t recognize the ICJ
sent from a phone
> On 14. Nov 2018, at 10:28, SelfishSeahorse wrote:
>
> I like your idea with 'de_jure', 'de_facto' and 'claimed' roles.
I can understand de facto and claimed, but I find de jure hard. Which law do
you apply? There is international law, customary international law ok, but
sent from a phone
On 14. Nov 2018, at 00:02, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>> And that's assuming a disputed flag doesn't cause more problems than it
>> solves: "No, that border
>> isn't disputed, we're absolutely certain it's right." says one of the
>> countries involved. So now we
>> need a f
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 01:52, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
>
> My thinking on this is we should re-purpose the relation roles for this sort
> of tagging. Right now we just copy the roles from type=multipolygon relations
> (inner, outer) when we should be using something like the following:
>
> Hyp
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 08:46, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>
> But look at what you're trying to achieve with special values meaning
> disputed. So 2.5 (or -2) is the
> same as 2 but disputed, 3.5 (or -3) is the same as 3 but disputed. It's
> cleaner for code in the
> renderer and for code in editors (a
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 10:24 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
>
> I had originally though about calling it 2.0 or 2.5, but thought that may
> create issues!
>
> So, would aminn_level=2.5 work?
>
Depends if the database schema holds it as an integer or not. That problem
also applies to
admin_level=
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 21:46, Paul Allen wrote:
>
> Please, not this. From the first two sentences of the first paragraph of
> the wiki:
>
> The admin_level key describes the administrative level of an object within
> a government hierarchy. A lower level means higher in the hierarchy.
>
> Your
On 12/11/2018 13:21, Noémie Lehuby wrote:
Should we consider the disputed=yes tag on boundary ways as a /de
facto/ standard and uniformize a few borders ?
Can you give examples of where you'd use it? There are many, many
examples of disputed borders in OSM and they have been mapped in
di
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 7:07 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick
wrote:
How about marking the disputed area (dashed lines) as a new level, say
> boundary=administrative + admin_level=15?
>
Please, not this. From the first two sentences of the first paragraph of
the wiki:
The admin_level key describes the ad
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 10:58, marc marc wrote:
> everybody agree with that, the question was : how ?
Hopefully, the drawing works?
Not sure if this will make any sort of sense, but here goes!
[image: OSM dispute.jpg]
Countries A & B share a common border, stretching from Country C to the
Ocea
On 12. Nov 2018, at 15:34, Simon Poole wrote:
> a consistent set of border polygons
> (which is what people want in the end).
everybody agree with that, the question was : how ?
i didn't understand very well what you propose to achieve this goal
take one of the initial exemple.
the border IS inc
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 9:23 PM Noémie Lehuby wrote:
> Should we consider the dispusted=yes tag on boundary ways as a *de facto*
> standard and uniformize a few borders ? Should we create a proposal about
> this tag ?
>
> The borders data do not fit the doc and the statement from the Foundation
>
sent from a phone
> On 12. Nov 2018, at 15:34, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> There are only a very small number of countries, maybe none, that don't
> have any sections of their borders that are disputed. While it can be
> argued that moving away from our de facto area of control model allows
> to re
n and are not really usable right now...
>>
>> Noémie Lehuby
>> Qwant Research
>>
>> Le 26/10/2018 à 20:52, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org a écrit :
>>> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:16:20 -0400
>>> From: Yuri Astrakhan
>>> To: "Tag discu
ow...
>
> Noémie Lehuby
> Qwant Research
>
> Le 26/10/2018 à 20:52, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org a écrit :
>> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:16:20 -0400
>> From: Yuri Astrakhan
>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>>
&g
right now...
Noémie Lehuby
Qwant Research
Le 26/10/2018 à 20:52, tagging-requ...@openstreetmap.org a écrit :
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2018 13:16:20 -0400
From: Yuri Astrakhan
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Add some tag to identify disput
Another related issue -- maritime disputed borders. In the case of Crimea,
the disputed border with Russia is over water, thus not showing clearly in
many renderings, and over land with Ukraine, showing as a solid line - thus
appearing to side with the Russian interpretation.
A while ago Paul Norm
32 matches
Mail list logo
