User talk:Johnparis/sandbox/Possible extensions

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Feel free to use this page to discuss ways this proposal could be extended. Johnparis (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Subnational claims

In creating examples, I found it far simpler to restrict subnational claims to being within Zones of Control actually controlled by the claimant.

However, there is at least one case I know of where the claimant has drawn lines inside a Zone of Control it does not control: Morocco has produced official provincial boundaries within the zone controlled by Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. It is possible to map this (see and the possible renderings page). But, to me, this is unacceptable. I liken in to a situation where France redraws the borough lines in London and publishes them. No.

Of course people can map whatever they please, but not as part of this formal proposal. So any such extension should adopt the restriction that subnational claims may be mapped only within the claimant's Undisputed Areas or within Zones of Control that they actually control.

--Johnparis (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Maritime boundaries

I kept away from maritime boundaries in the original proposal because there are so many maritime disputes. Also, I think the map looks a lot better without "halos" around islands in the middle of the ocean (one of the points Gustavf made in 2009, see Talk:Proposed_features/Maritime_borders). Maritime borders are normally not verifiable (there is literally no "on the ground" reality except for the occasional buoy). When there is a dispute, who actually controls a maritime area is often difficult or impossible to determine, sometimes varying minute to minute.

However, during development of this proposal, it became clearer to me that it can accommodate such disputes (although I still think that is preferable to stick to the land_area relations).

--Johnparis (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Names and descriptions "according to"

This is a particularly thorny topic, but I believe an extension would be possible here as well.

A Disputed Area or even a Zone of Control can have names that differ depending on the claimant. For instance, SADR has named its collective Zones of Control the SADR Liberated Territories (or SADR Free Zone). It calls the entire Disputed Area the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, not Western Sahara. And for Morocco, all those areas have no name; Morocco considers them an integral part of the country.

The difficulty is choosing a tagging structure that would not break existing apps. For instance, I thought of a few possibilities.

  • name:according_to:SADR:en=*
  • name:en:SADR=*
  • name:SADR:en=*

But unfortunately I think that any tag starting with "name:" will break one app or another. So I think maybe something like this:

  • name_according_to:*:*=* (where the first * is the claimant code and the second is the language code)
    • name_according_to:KOSO:en=*
    • name_according_to:RS:fr=*

The "noname" tag is more forgiving:

  • noname:*=yes (claimant code)
    • noname:MA=yes

For descriptions, the same structure as "name_according_to" could be used with a "description_by" tag:

  • description_by:*:*=* (where the first * is the claimant code and the second is the language code)
    • description_by:KOSO:en=*
    • description_by:RS:fr=*

--Johnparis (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Viewpoints of third parties on claims

Some discussions have suggested tagging the claims to see who supports which claimants. I looked at that and found some problems:

  • the viewpoint is often not verifiable
  • adding such a tag could invite edit wars ("Country XX supports our claim!" "No it doesn't, it is neutral!")

If such an extension is desired, the tag I would suggest would be something like sides_with or viewpoint_of:

  • sides_with:accepting_country_code=* (country code of one claimant, or nobody) -- on a Disputed Area relation (Note: The "accepting country code" is the code of the country whose viewpoint on the claim is being recorded)

This would produced 200 or so tags, one per country. Each key would have one value, chosen from among three options. This approach seems to be the trend these days.

An alternative would be to reverse the tag:

This would give three keys with up to 200 values separated by semicolons.

I would avoid use of the word "recognition" in these cases. Recognizing a country is related to establishing diplomatic relations with it. Acceptance of its territorial claims is an entirely different matter. -- Johnparis (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)