Bulk edit: members of administrative boundaries

There are several issues with the tagging of members of administrative boundaries:

  1. Some members do not have “boundary=administrative” and “admin_level=*” tags, as defined in the wiki.

  2. Some members have name tag(s) taken from (one of) the boundary relation(s), which they should not have.

  3. Maritime members of coastal administrative boundaries have “boundary=maritime” tag rather than “boundary=administrative” and “maritime=yes” tags.

I’m planning to address the above issues in separate steps in the above order.

In each step, I’ll create an appropriate Overpass and hand-edit the resulting .osm file into an .osc file that will be uploaded using JOSM. For example, the query for the first topic.

Please leave your comments and ideas for improvements.

In addition:

  • Maritime members of coastal administrative boundaries have “border_type=baseline” tag that should be removed. According to the wiki, this tag is used for the low-tide mark of the sea.

This will be integrated with item 3 above - handling of maritime members of coastal administrative boundaries.

I’m totally fine with boundary fixing.
What is wrong with having border_type=baseline? If I undestand wiki article correctly, it’s used to distinguish between 3 different types of maritime boundaries: baseline/contiguous/eez.

means that the tag is appropriate for the shoreline during the lowest tide (קו החוף בשפל מקסימלי). In Israel, we don’t have significant shoreline changes with the tide and that line was not mapped.
See the diagram on the wiki page for additional clarity.

Done in changesets 120332982 and 120365900

Yeah, I understand this, but for me it looks like in our case this boundary=maritime just can match the natural=coastline. Meaning, this is not a natural=* feature which might exist or not, but a political border which is always present there or there. Am I wrong?

BTW, our neighbour Egypt does have it