Do note that it is a “rule” of OSM (its relations) that you include type=boundary as one of the tags on a relation that also has boundary=administrative. You had omitted this tag on the data you proposed before and it would be / will be incorrect for the relation to omit this tag.
Also, the disputed_by tag should exclude Honduras and Jamaica, including only (and only perhaps, at that), United States of America.
If and when these two relations can be linked (here in this topic) and vetted by others (ditto), I think we can dust our hands of this (“be done with it”) in a constructive manner!
Just like many other things in OSM (when this “I’ll get to it by a certain date” comes up) “we are volunteer contributors,” and so “no rush.” Thanks for coming in for a landing on the airstrip of “happy consensus.”
Since we all agree that they are Colombian territory, I again invite those present to move this post to the Colombia category. It seems to me that you are overlooking the Colombian OSM community as the main stakeholder in this matter.
Or perhaps you want to set a precedent where tagging decisions are made about a territory without taking into account the directly related osm community. And so we too begin to make decisions and implement changes in the administrative areas of other territories like USA, France, or Germany without taking their OSM communities into account.
I am attentive to the fact that the proper channels are followed and that at least a minimum of courtesy is shown to the OSM community directly related to or affected by this issue.
I’d be happy to see this topic to move to the Columbia category (+ proper pointers / refs / links). As well as to offer a salute to Felipe for suggesting this, and the courage and correctness it takes to move doing so to a more common occurrence than we usually have seen.
Though, we ARE approaching the finish line on this one, it couldn’t hurt.
As this just popped into existence in the Colombia Community, a quick recap:
While OSM data presently entered for Bajo Nuevo and Serranilla (islands, cays…) are partially entered, a new Contributor requested completed type=boundary relations for both. We seem to have pieced together an (initial) correct set of tags, but these will need to pieced together from the last dozen or three of posts. The OP has said s/he will do this in a week. More than one of the august Contributors on this thread have offered the OP “thumbs down” at being disingenuous or disrespectful and are regarding this pledge with caution. Others may wish to take the actual entry of the (largely, initially) correct data compiled here into OSM as very short task. “Shepherd the data” into OSM.
Si bien los datos de OSM ingresados actualmente para Bajo Nuevo y Serranilla (islas, cayos, etc.) están incompletos, un nuevo colaborador ha completado las relaciones de tipo boundary para ambos territorios. Parece que hemos logrado reunir un conjunto de etiquetas (inicialmente) correcto; no obstante, será necesario recopilarlas a partir de la última docena de publicaciones, aproximadamente. El autor del hilo ha manifestado que llevará a cabo esta tarea en el plazo de una semana. Varios de los distinguidos colaboradores que participan en este hilo han expresado su desaprobación hacia el autor —señalándolo como poco sincero o irrespetuoso— y observan esta promesa con cautela. Otros podrían considerar la posibilidad de asumir la tarea de ingresar efectivamente en OSM los datos recopilados aquí —los cuales son, en gran medida y de entrada, correctos— como una labor muy breve. Se trataría de «encauzar los datos» hacia OSM.