User talk:Johnparis/sandbox/archive

Archive

This page contains archived comments relevant only to Version 1.0 of the proposal.

"Disputed Area" and "Zone of Control"

I modified the proposal to take into account the "according_to" notion (above), which led me to some realizations.

First, the two-way disputes are always characterized by overlapping claims. These overlaps can be determined programmatically (and can be created by mappers) as relations. I will call each of these overlaps a Disputed Area (DA).

Second, each Disputed Area is associated with one or more boundaries representing de facto control. If the boundaries divide the DA into parts, it leaves subareas. I will call each of these a Zone of Control (ZC). If the boundaries run along the edges of the DA, the entire DA consists of one ZC.

Now, for each ZC there can be a tag "controlled_by" indicating who exercises effective control. The value of this tag can be "neither" (as in the case of Parsley Island), "both" (in the case of cooperative control, as in the German-Luxembourg Condominium), or the ISO code of one of the two parties.

This makes for some very interesting possibilities in rendering.

I will use as an example the dispute between MA and SADR over Western Sahara. For those unfamiliar with the dispute, MA controls those parts of Western Sahara that are north and west of a Line of Control called the Berm. SADR controls those parts of Western Sahara south and east of the Berm. (In this case, the Berm is the set of boundaries that divide the Disputed Area into parts.)

If you examine the MA claim and the SADR claim, their overlap exactly matches the boundary of Western Sahara. This is the Disputed Area. Further, the Disputed Area is divided into subareas by the Berm (five of them as currently drawn). These are the Zones of Control. One ZC is controlled by MA; the rest are controlled by SADR.

Now for the sake of discussion I will introduce two new terms "Lesser (countryname)" and "Greater (countryname)". The "Greater" version of a country is equal to its claimed version under the proposal. The "Lesser" version is the Greater version country MINUS all the Disputed Areas.

In this case, the current, live OSM shows a de facto MA that is equal to Lesser MA + the ZC that it controls in Western Sahara. OSM shows a de facto SADR that is equal to its ZCs in Western Sahara.

Rendering possibilities

Let's say for the sake of argument that we agree that each ZC will be covered by diagonal hatch marks, running lower-left to upper-right for one party to a dispute, and lower-right to upper-left for the other. Thus, the map will show Morocco as Lesser Morocco (no hatches) plus the ZC it controls in Western Sahara (right hatches). SADR would be shown as its Zones of Control in Western Sahara (left hatches).

Again, each Zone of Control would have a tag:

• controlled_by=* (either MA or SADR in this case)

Western Sahara now "comes to life" as a recognizable part of the map. As a Disputed Area, it would be tagged with the two claims.

Further, this gives the opportunity to show which other countries accept each side's claim. You could have, for example, on the Western Sahara Disputed Area:

• claimed_by=MA;SADR
• acceptance:claim:BT=neutral
• acceptance:claim:ZA=SADR
• acceptance:claim:SADR=SADR
• acceptance:claim:MA=MA

... etc ...

Possible values for the "acceptance" tag in this case would be: "neutral", MA, SADR. (Another possibility would be "unknown", but in that case -- as usual -- it's best just to omit the tag for that country.)

At this point, it's relatively simple to construct a "Map of the World According to XX".

For each country ZZ, its area according to XX is equal to:

 Lesser ZZ 
 + Disputed Areas where claimed_by contains ZZ and acceptance:claim:XX=ZZ 
 + Zones of Control where controlled_by contains ZZ and there is no acceptance:claim:XX tag on the corresponding Disputed Area (or XX is neutral)

In this case, from the point of view of country XX, the (fully accepted) Disputed Areas would not have hatch marks, while the Zones of Control would.

-- Johnparis (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

"two-way disputes are always characterized by overlapping claims ... each Disputed Area is associated with one or more boundaries representing de facto control" Fun fact, there is one border dispute which has an area that neither country claims!  Bir Tawil! So a "disputed area" could be in zero boundaries!

Rorym (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Rory. In fact, this proposal works perfectly well for such a "terra nullius". It just wouldn't be classified as a Disputed Area (since it's not in dispute). And according to Wikipedia, anyhow, Bir Tawil is under the effective control of Egypt, even if not claimed.

There are also areas (like Parsley Island) where neither party exercises effective control. And one that I know of (Western Nouadhibou Peninsula) that is under the effective control of a third party (Mauritania) and claimed by two others (Morocco and RASD, but not Mauritania) -- although the actual current status of that land is extremely difficult to ascertain. It seems likely, based on news reports (rare!) that I've read, that at least part of it is controlled by RASD. -- Johnparis (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

The more I ponder this, the more I see possible mechanisms that could work for OSMF. In particular, consider this possibility ...

Disputed Areas will be rendered AS IF they were admin_level=2. Lines of Control within them would be represented by dashed lines.

-- Johnparis (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)