Has this edit war stabilised? Apparently it has been blocking coastline updates across the whole world for *months *now.
https://osmdata.openstreetmap.de/data/land-polygons.html https://github.com/fossgis/osmdata/issues/7 On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 at 11:40, Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de> wrote: > On Monday 13 January 2020, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > > > According to Wikipedia, the International Hydrographic Organization > > defines the eastern boundary of the Río de la Plata as "a line > > joining Punta del Este, Uruguay and Cabo San Antonio, Argentina", > > which is what has been the case in OSM until now: > > That is a straw man argument that has been floated already at the very > beginning when a riverbank polygon was first created for that (which > was later than when the Río de la Plata was originally mapped by the > way - just to clarify that). > > The IHO specifies an (obviously subjective and non-verifiable) set of > limits of *oceans and seas*. If anyone wants to use this as an > argument that would make the Río de la Plata a marginal sea of the > Atlantic Ocean and therefore to be placed outside the coastline. So > using the IHO as a source (in lieu of the verifiable geography in a > Wikipedia-like fashion so to speak) kind of defeats the basic argument > for the Río de la Plata to not be a maritime waterbody. > > > This current representation in OSM leads to a few strange situations > > especially in toolchains/map styles that use different colours for > > inland water and oceans, or that draw sea depths, or just highlight > > the coastline. Buenos Aires, according to OSM, is currently not a > > coastal city. > > The main reason why the current mapping is vigorously maintained by some > local mappers is political in nature. Argentina and Uruguay want to > claim this area as internal waters (and the administrative boundaries > are mapped accordingly) but not every other nation accepts this claim. > Presenting the Río de la Plata as a non-maritime waterbody in as many > maps and data sets as possible would support such claim. > > My own solution as a data user to this has been to simply maintain a > coastline cheatfile which marks this as a special case and moves the > Río de la Plata polygon into the ocean polygon data. This is > unfortunate but way simpler than trying to fight against a widespread > politically motivated conviction. See also: > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:maritime=yes > > > I'm not so clear about how to interpret the wiki page myself when it > > comes to river mouths. There's a clarifying proposal here > > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_Features/Coastline-River > >_transit_placement but this is still at the proposal stage. > > The IMO logical approach to placing the closing segment of the coastline > at a river mouth according to the spirit of the OpenStreetMap project > is to place it where for the verifiable view of humans the maritime > domain ends and the riverine domain starts. This is largely an > ecological question. Coastline and riverbanks are physical geography > features so their position is to be defined by physically observable > characteristics rather than politically defined limits. Like so often > (for example in case of the line between scrubland and woodland) this > is often not a clearly visible sharp line but a transit. There are > however clearly observable limits to the extent of this transit. The > proposal cited tries to specify those. > > Back when i drafted the proposal there was very little interest in the > subject except by those who were opposed to it for political reasons. > Therefore i did not pursue it further. But anyone is welcome to take > it up again. > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
