On 26/11/18 20:32, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 4:37 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdre...@gmail.com <mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> On 23. Nov 2018, at 17:33, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com
<mailto:sea...@gmail.com>> 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?
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 a treaty or a similar legal document. For example, this
role could be applied to more than 99% of the Canada-United States
border (there are still some minor disputes between the two).
Each country has its own boundary relation.
For example? No conflict. ;
Canada could have a boundary relation using way 666 as an outer.
USA could have a different boundary relation using the same way 666 as
an outer.
The source may need to be stated ... I'd opt to put it on the way - to
help stop people moving it.
Conflict;
Canada could have a boundary relation using way 667 as an outer.
USA could have a different boundary relation using way 668 as an outer.
These two may 'trespass' over each other.
Why is it required for OSM to state the cause of this problem?
OSM could simply indicate the opinions of where the boundary 'is' from
each country.
This would then leave the render the problem of what to do.
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?
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
