Based on Wikipedia’s list of continental models we could add some new subkeys specifying which continental models a particular place=continent belongs to. Something like:
My first thought would be concern about the possibility of folks confusing the models, but anyone editing subkeys for an entire continent is very likely to be an experienced mapper. Also edits to continents and their relations are watched extremely closely, perhaps even more than the Discovery Channel’s shark week programming.
Could you indicate where that rule is written?
It is quite convenient that given two points of view, one Spanish-speaking and the other English-speaking, the dispute is defined using English terminology.
There is no error in the translation from English to Spanish nor a misinterpretation of the definitions.
They are two different points of view.
The English-speaking part of the American continent teaches in its educational system that America is two continents.
And the Spanish and Portuguese speaking counterpart of the American continent teaches in their educational systems that America is a single continent with three subdivisions.
The fact that you indicate that the only and correct answer is what English speakers say is one of the reasons why I opened this same thread in Spanish.
The OSM policy on disputes is designed for geopolitical disputes, not situations where the world is simply more nuanced than a particular elementary school curriculum would teach.
I come from a country where geography education has always been shambolic. My junior high social studies teacher insisted on the existence of Yugoslavia well into the 2000s, not based on any particular ideology but rather on the outdated wall map and outdated textbooks in his underfunded classroom. My Spanish teacher wasn’t exactly working off the latest edition of the DRAE, either. I credit the worn-down, barely legible playground maps outside with instilling a sense of wonder about what wasn’t being taught.
As an educational project, the best thing we can do is to inform the public that all these notions of a continent exist in various configurations. Luckily, there’s no geopolitical dispute about what this pan-hemispheric continent would be called in English or French, or what the northern end of it would be called in Spanish or Portuguese.
If mapping all of the above would make OpenStreetMap Americana too cluttered at zoom level 0, at least it would help to balance out Europe/Europe/Europe/Europe/Europe/Europe/Europe/Europe/Europe/Europe/Europe:
Is this story a brief explanation of what is happening with our educational system?
With all due respect, trying to explain the educational systems of 660 million people with an anecdote about a teacher who didn’t know about the demise of Yugoslavia seems incorrect,
No, of course not. I just wanted to provide a little perspective; take it as you will. My point is that, for something like continents that has multiple mainstream answers, none of them universally accepted, we don’t have to pick a side. OSM is lucky to have data consumers who will do that on our behalf.
An educational system is not wrong because it teaches things that differ from other educational systems. We are in the 21st century and the gaps in basic and secondary education have narrowed significantly.
The two educational systems have their premises and are correct, but that is not the debate I wanted to create.
What I want to know is how to reach a solution and make both parties satisfied?
If you ask me I would say that the only way I would see America as 2 continents is if the Pacific Ocean joins the Caribbean Sea, but I would be unaware that my counterpart who learned that America is two continents.
Two different points of view, both correct.
I suggested a rather verbose and cumbersome solution that is probably too confusing . Another possibility would be for OSM to have 11 continents representing overlapping areas:
America
Afro-Eurasia
Oceania
Antarctica
Eurasia
Africa
Europe
North America
South America
Asia
Australia
Data consumers could choose to display them all, or filter out by name those that don’t make sense for their audience.
I’ve only read some of the recent threads in Spanish about this topic, but it sounds like the general sentiment is that one American continent is what they’re familiar with because that’s what they’ve been taught. This perspective is as valid as the alternative. Unlike the border situation in South Asia, for example, there’s no national law requiring maps to depict a specific number of continents, and even if there were such a law, we probably wouldn’t be bound by it.
We can have all three America nodes. To the extent that this clutters a renderer, it can be their opportunity to exercise editorial control that we shouldn’t provide. If it confuses a student, that can be a teaching moment, just as when an encyclopedia omits Pluto from the list of planets or mentions an exotic state of matter beyond the classic three. Ironically, many major commercial data consumers don’t even use OSM’s continents or countries at all, instead substituting Natural Earth, Wikidata, or their own proprietary data. No one is obligated to use 100% of OSM.
It makes me a little sad that we have these parallel threads, as if so that two groups of Americans can talk about each other instead of with each other. I thank you for pointing out that we’re missing a place=continent node for America and encourage you to contribute it to the map. I have no idea exactly where you should put it, but you probably have somewhere in mind already. I hope those who expressed dismay at the existing North and South America nodes can similarly accommodate these other two continents in a spirit of amistad.
On the Geofabrik download server, where I try to split the world into manageable chunks, I have North/Central/South America, where the North is made up of Canada, the US, and Mexico. This is a definition that I have certainly found somewhere on Wikipedia or so - I always try to use regional splits that are somehow established, where people who haven’t spend much thought on the matter will still find regions they somehow expect. If the community in the Americas believes that this split is somehow problematic, I’m happy to change it.
My goal in opening 2 threads, Spanish and English, was to get the points of view of people with different languages.
Sometimes it is simply not possible to have all the opinions in one place because some would feel intimidated to give an opinion in a language other than their native one.
I have promoted debate in Spanish in other spaces related to OSM.
If this thread had only been opened in Spanish, most of those who have written here would not have participated. And if it had only been opened in English, Spanish speakers would not have participated.
The feeling of sadness is mutual, It is not a commitment to a single point of view, I wanted to promote debate about something that concerns all the inhabitants of America since it is closely related to the education we have received, and each supported by duly supported arguments.
I love Frederik’s comment which feels “things are done because of convenience and some flavor of consensus,” especially as I have heard this or know this to be used by people who are in that area (as their preferred or accepted-to-work-with-others convention). Yes.
This is how OSM works. This is how the world works, really.
I like approaches which allow a pluralistic view of others, as that’s when we find keys that fit into locks that turn open and allow agreement. Zeke’s (with continent: tagging…) is a hyper, could-go-there flavor of us maybe doing this, I’m “not shaking my head no” at this, though, nor am I specifically nodding, as he only proposes it as a loose talking point, so I do, too.
There’s so much going on here, sociologically, linguistically, kind of historically, maybe.
As (not if) we agree that the world (including OSM) works with versions of agreement, some loose, good for us.
There are times when the answer is not either-or. It is “yes.”
I was generally taught that North and South America are different continents. Europe and Asia too in primary school, but that one’s highly dubious.
My general feeling these days is that the land bridge between North and South America is tenuous enough relative to the whole that I don’t really credit it as making it all one continent, especially with the bulk of them being on two separate plates (the pinch at the north end of the Caribbean plate doesn’t “feel” narrow enough to count as a third to me. If anything the connection at Panama is more tenuous than between Eurasia and Africa¹ and those two are definitely different continents in my mind.
1 - about half as wide if a quick and dirty measurement in OsmAnd is to be trusted
You could do the same exercise and measure the distance in a straight line from the city of Flensburg to Dagebüll, the distance is around 50 km, somewhat less than the narrowest part of the land bridge you mention.
Maybe we could also separate Denmark from the European continent.
The distance between Calais and Dover is around 40 km. Has the possibility of placing the United Kingdom outside the European continent been considered at any time?
Iceland is closer to America than to Europe and it is still a European country.
There are various common definitions of Europe, some of which include Iceland and even Greenland but not the UK. We’d be in serious trouble if we had to model continents as boundary relations.
The continental part of America is made up of 3 tectonic plates = North American Plate, Caribbean Plate and South American Plate.
If we base it on the fact that it is a “Continent” from a geological point of view, the result would be that America is 3 continents.
If we divide the continent in two, North and South, then let’s do the narrowest part, Panama, there would be half Panama for the north and half Panama for the south.
If the idea is to annex the Caribbean Plate to one of the 2 largest tectonic plates we could also annex it to the South American tectonic plate, after all we have more in common than with northern tectonic plate.
All of the above are just ways to refute various points of view following similar thinking to the one proposed.
I don’t mean to be rude or cynical. Using a translator is sometimes difficult when you want to answer correctly, constructing sentences in Spanish so that they do not seem rude takes time. That is one of the reasons why my posts have so many edits, I write in Spanish on gboard, then Google translates again from English to Spanish and I find differences with what I wrote originally. Sometimes I have come across kind warnings about how I say something, and I am surprised at the translations.
It may not be clear to some (it is to me, it seems clear to others in this topic) that the answer is “yes” (or “both” or even “many”). It isn’t either-or as the topic is phrased. We are taught (sort of slightly different, sometimes significantly different) various things as “correct,” some more in a particular context, some less in a particular context. They are very likely all correct answers in a given particular context. This might depend on the discipline (bathymetry, geology…), a language / cultural context (look at Europe!), what one “was generally taught” and is “prevailing understanding around here” et cetera.
This happens with borders (and conflicts), we have mechanisms, they are fuzzy and imperfect. So are humans. This happens with continents and their many contexts and languages and perspectives, too.
There are a great many correct answers given many particular contexts. This is correct.
Many have said, I agree, that use-cases should or even must be able to do some discernment of the data. This means what you might be presented with as data (or “an answer”) by OSM may not always meet your expectations that this answer is in a (syntactic, tagged) form which offers you a “correct” answer, to you, in your particular use-case context. This isn’t new or unique to OSM.
We’re fine. We might continue to discuss how we might refine things, but let’s agree on this much.
Most people probably don’t give as much thought to this question as we’re giving it. These are all just terms of convenience, for geologists, geographers, and geography teachers alike. The division between North and South America is usually explained in terms of the Isthmus of Panama, just as Africa is usually set off based on the Isthmus of Suez, but not because there’s a rigorous global standard for continental separation.
Our tagging scheme for places has an inherent bias, by including place=continent but not including any tag for a similarly sized cultural or geopolitical region like Latin America or the Middle East. Arguably these regions matter more than the continents for some purposes. Maybe there was an assumption was that the continents are better defined, and thus a better fit for a data-driven project like OSM. But we’re realizing that the continents are only as well defined as other macrogeographical features like seas and mountain ranges – that is, sometimes but not always.
We don’t have a perfect answer for how to handle such large features, because we don’t have any way to model amorphous features other than as an arbitrary point. We probably have to accept some degree of arbitrariness at this scale, but “splitting the difference” and including both systems of dividing the western hemisphere seems like a decent compromise to me.
. Another possibility would be for OSM to have 11 continents representing overlapping areas: