On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 at 01:52, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> 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:
>
> Hypothetical but real-life example:
> Country A and Country B are disputing Territory C but currently Country A
> controls it.
> - The borders (ways) between A and B that are not in dispute should be tagged
> with role=de_jure in both countries' boundary relations
> - The line of control (so the border between B and C) should be tagged with
> role=de_facto in both countries' boundary relations.
> - The claimed border of B (so the "border" between A and C) should be tagged
> with role=claimed in Country B's relation.
>
> So if you want to draw borders as we currently draw them in OSM, just pick-up
> the de_jure and de_facto role ways in the relations to build up the boundary
> polygons.
>
> But if you're from Country B and you want your claimed borders, just pick-up
> the de_jure and claimed role ways in the relations to build up Country B's
> boundary polygon.
>
> The point is, "inner" and "outer" are really superfluous and can be inferred
> from the geometry itself. So we should be using the relation role to tag
> these sorts of things. And we can even use it to tag even more complicated
> situations like if Territory C is split in control between A and B.
>
> I am open to alternatives to my suggested role names, by the way ("de_jure",
> "de_facto", "claimed").
I like your idea with 'de_jure', 'de_facto' and 'claimed' roles.
However, i see the following problems:
1. 'inner' roles (and thus 'outer' roles too) are still needed in
case a country has enclaves.
2. The boundary polygon would still not hold the information which
territory is undisputed and which is disputed. You still only have an
area that includes undisputed and disputed territory.
A possible solution i see would be:
1. A new boundary:part relation (with inner and outer roles) that
only includes either the undisputed or disputed area of a country.
2. Changing the definition of the current boundary relation in a
way that these boundary:part relations (areas) can be added as members
with role 'undisputed', 'controlled' or 'claimed' to the boundary
relation.
Thus, your example above (Country A and Country B are disputing
Territory C but currently Country A controls it) would be tagged as
follows:
1. A type=boundary:part relation with the area of country A
without the disputed territory C.
2. A type=boundary:part relation with the area of country B
without the disputed territory C.
3. A type=boundary:part relation with the disputed territory C.
4. A type=boundary relation for country A with 1 as member with
role 'undisputed' and 3 as member with role 'controlled'.
5. A type=boundary relation for country B with 2 as member with
role 'undisputed' and 3 as member with role 'claimed'.
Regards
Markus
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
