Create circular ways for both 12nm territorial sea boundaries for Bajo NuevoBank and Serranilla Bank, which includes a “type=boundary” relation with the following tags:
For Bajo Nuevo Bank:
boundary=administrative,
admin_level=2,
maritime=yes,
border_type=territorial,
name=Territorial Sea of Bajo Nuevo Bank United States Minor Outlying Islands,
country=United States Minor Outlying Islands
disputed_by=Colombia,
source=ICJ Judgement 2012
For Serranilla Bank:
boundary=administrative,
admin_level=2,
maritime=yes,
border_type=territorial,
name=Territorial Sea of Serranilla Bank, United States Minor Outlying Islands,
country=United States Of America
disputed_by=Colombia,
source=ICJ Judgement 2012
I mean, the boundaries are already on the basemap. Why are they not in the Nominatim database? Please add these to the database!
These Caribbean islands do indeed have some tagging which might be updated. Let’s be careful and gain as much consensus as we can, even if it is one (stepwise) tag at a time (like agreeing upon name= first, then disputed_by), starting with name.
I don’t have a problem with “Territorial Sea of Seranilla Bank”’ (or “…Bajo Nuevo” — though see below) but let’s omit “United Sates Minor Outlying Islands,” as this designation is a statistical grouping, not part of the name=* of the sea surrounding the islands. Bajo Nuevo was also claimed by Jamaica and Nicaragua and Serranilla was also claimed by Honduras, though this is believed resolved by the ICJ judgement of 2012, in favor of Colombia (not the USA).
So, if it can be shown that the USA respects the 2012 decision of the ICJ (in favor of Columbia), the name would likely not be “Territorial Sea…” but something that Columbia names (and tags appropriately to ITS jurisdiction), as the USA is no longer the sovereign with legal claim to name.
In short, getting the name right must initially assure that OSM gets right the ACTUAL sovereign which has legal claim. One way to (at least begin to) do so is to document recognition by previously-disputing sovereigns (such as the USA, Jamaica, Nicaragua and Honduras) of acceptance of the court’s jurisdiction and decision of 2012.
The ICJ ruling of 2012, Nicaragua v Colombia, unanimously confirms that Bajo Nuevo is Colombian territory.
Constant presence of the Colombian National Navy with a naval base, a lighthouse, and marine research stations, In other words, it has exercised effective and exclusive jurisdiction.
Vasquez - Baccio Treaty of 1972. “ARTICLE 1: In accordance with the terms of this Treaty, the Government of the United States of America hereby relinquishes any and all claims of sovereignty over Quitasueño, Roncador, and Serrana.”
Sanín-Robertson Treaty of 1993 (Jamaica and Colombia)
Although the U.S. included Bajo Nuevo on its list of “Minor Overseas Islands” in the 19th century under the Guano Act, in practice it exercises no sovereignty or administration over it. The US did not intervene in the ICJ process to claim these territories, which reinforces that its claim is an administrative relic in its internal databases, but not a reality in current international law.
The U.S. claim based on the Guano Islands Act of 1856 is a historical relic with no practical or legal validity today. Even the ISO 3166-1 lists of United States Minor Overseas Islands are often subject to controversy or updates when they conflict with rulings of international tribunals.
But of course, none of that matters, let’s do what you want.
Given Felipe’s research and claims above, it would seem Columbia has jurisdiction over both islands (and “naming rights” to the 12 nautical miles of surrounding sea).
A more accurate tag (which doesn’t presently exist, being “initially coined” as this and include at least one value of USA) might be formerly_disputed_by=USA. Without asking Columbia, we don’t know the (EXACTLY correct) name=* value (it shouldn’t be USA-derived) , though Mar territorial de Bajo Nuevo is a good guess, and both islands should be country=Colombia (not USA or USA-derived). Otherwise, other tags (boundary=administrative, admin_level=2, maritime=yes, border_type=territorial, source=ICJ Judgement 2012) seem correct.
In short, this is a case of “it can take 14 years for OSM to finally get around and notice that the courts and countries want maps to reflect legal reality.” I’ve been watching / sorta keeping track in our USA admin_level wiki (footnote 67) for a decade at least…I can and will update that wiki as the tags become more correct. Any OSM author is welcome to change them, simply make sure you are signing your work with authority, please. We like OSM becoming MORE correct, even if (only) slowly and incrementally.
These sarcastic comments can be seen as counterproductive to a constructive discussion. Please be nice to each other. Stevea is setting a good example here.
OK, you can label the territorial sea boundaries as Colombian and disputed by the USA. I can’t wait for my suggested territorial sea boundaries to be added to Nominatim!!! I am psyched, because that way, I can get the territorial administrative boundaries (including the 12nm seas) of every United States county-equivalent, as well as Bajo Nuevo Bank and Serranilla Bank!!!
The U.S. has a fraught relationship to international tribunals, so even the ruling’s scope could potentially be disputed if it ever came up. From an official U.S. perspective, it’s probably more than a mere internal database artifact, of the sort that you could get corrected by e-mailing a GIS department. Removing one of these features from the list would be a political decision, and I think we all have an inkling how that would go about now.
Regardless, the U.S. claim alone isn’t enough to override whatever defaults OSM would model based on the on-the-ground rule. OSM is making a map by homegrown editorial rules, not those of a particular government, so Colombia’s activities in the area would be relevant.
Even from a U.S. perspective, the insular territories aren’t county-equivalents. In case you’re interested in the guano islands for historical reasons, OpenHistoricalMap has substantial coverage of U.S. boundaries over time, for example, 1867–1889. I don’t know if the islands you’re interested in have been added to the boundaries yet, but the claims from all sides would be in scope for that project. As it happens, OHM also has more comprehensive county-equivalent coverage than OSM for the time being.
The relevant OSMF policy is here. In addition to the implications of that described above (we map what is verifiable), it would also be possible for you to create a map that shows the world as you would like it to be.
Is that something that you want to do, and if so, what sort of map?
I’d name the boundaries “Bajo Nuevo Bank” and “Serranilla Bank”. Does that seem fair and right to you? If so, please make the additions of the boundaries to Nominatim by next week. Thanks in advance!
Yes that would be something that I would like to do, but iD has no circle tool, I don’t know the exact centers of Bajo Nuevo and Serranilla’s 12nm territorial sea boundaries, and JOSM is base on a language I don’t have on my computer.
NVMD, I know the exact centers now. 15°47’50"N, 79°51’20"W for Serranilla Bank, and 15°51’00"N, 78°38’00"W for Bajo Nuevo Bank. Please add circlular ways with the boundaries exactly 12 miles from these locations with the labels “Serranilla Bank” and "Bajo Nuevo Bank, respectively, to the Nominatim database.
No, we wouldn’t want to change it in OpenStreetMap itself (for the reasons mentioned above) but you could change it on a map that you make. You don’t need to draw a circle yourself because (taking Cayo Bajo Nuevo as an example) the circular boundary already exists - part here and the rest here.
As an example, if you’re creating a raster map (like most of the ones that you see at OpenStreetMap.org) you’d load some data into a database, and the map software reads from that database. You’ll need to modify the database after loading it so that the boundary of Colombia doesn’t contain those two ways (which it normally would) and the boundary of the USA does contain those two ways (which it normally wouldn’t).
In order to do that you’ll need to learn how to combine data from various OpenStreetMap extracts (such as the North, South, and Central America extracts here) as well as learning how to create a map (one set of instructions here).
Anorther, much easier, option that might work for you is to use uMap to create a map with the labels you want on it.
And I would immediately change those names to the Spanish language, which is the official language of the Republic of Colombia and its entire territory.
I’m referring to name and name:es, you would have name:en. But I don’t know if you should fix your Nominatim query. There is no middle ground where it is acceptable for a portion of Colombian territory to be named in a language other than Spanish, except for some special cases where Creole does not have its official counterpart in Spanish on state maps or database.
I should add that these special cases, including Creoles, Caribbean English, or any of the dozens of indigenous languages spoken in Colombia, are matters discussed and decided by the Colombian OSM community (as any OSM community does regarding the territory they represent). They are not cases decided based on individual needs.
At this point, I suggest that the author of this topic or its moderators move it to the Colombia category, which is the appropriate place to discuss the author’s proposal.