Actually, usage of the place key on multipolygons varies by location. There are 330k around the world. For examples, see here.
1 Like
Please read up on the meaning of type=boundary and Key:boundary - OpenStreetMap Wiki before you drag unrelated things like home owner’s associations into it.
These micronations are mapped as plain localities without claiming to be anything more than that. Given that there are plenty of people who refer to those places by their various names (and that Wikipedia and Wikidata items exist), that level of mapping makes sense.
There is absolute no dispute about the fact that those localities exist. Localities (any place=* really) can be mapped as bounded areas; this is common for administrative boundaries, but also for suburbs, neighbourhoods, etc. where the boundaries are known, but not part of formal administrative regions.
The boundaries are known here.
What is disputed is that these localities are also nations. Most mappers agree that they do not meet the threshold for a proper country, so we don’t tag them as that (I didn’t).
Given that these localities literally fall outside of existing countries with a community of mappers and local customs, I find it makes sense to follow the wiki recommendation and use type=boundary:
(I’m not disputing that multipolygon places exist, just that that practice is not a requirement in this case, and appears to be considered deprecated. It also wouldn’t change anything here, as we omit admin_level and use boundary=disputed. boundary=place could be used as well if that fits better.)
I’m not convinced that this area in any sense a “boundary”. It’s defined only by the absence of another claim. To claim that it is even a “disputed boundary” seems to give far too much credence to one teenager who in less enlightened times would have been deemed worthy of a slap around the head with a wet fish.
Unlike Molossia, in this case there is nothing there. It’s not verifiable.
2 Likes
Whatever we think of those extranational pockets; they exist (if only because existing national boundaries surround them), are referred to using a variety of names, and have some notability. This is more than can be said for plenty of tiny hamlets and localities around the world.
Mapping them makes sense, because if we leave these out bored teenagers will keep mapping those empty spots with full nation tags. Better to map them as accurately as possible using tags which reflect their current status (i.e., unclaimed or semi-claimed localities).
Probably. 
If boundary=disputed is too contentious, boundary=place can be used as well, which is common with place=locality/neighbourhood/hamlet/quarter. Although I would say that these areas are pretty much disputed by almost all parties involved or neighbouring them.
Again, type=boundary is not limited to administrative boundaries with an admin_level. There is no point in using a multipolygon here.
And you should add place=locality.
By the way, according to the article " In October 2023, when Jackson and a group of citizens attempted to settle permanently in Verdis, they were forcibly removed by the Croatian police.", so at the same time it’s Croatian and not Croatian?
1 Like
AFAIK it is disputed between Serbia and Croatia, but in an inverted sense (Serbia claims it is part of Croatia and Croatia claims it is part of Serbia).
I’d suggest mapping it with the more neutral name “Pocket 3” and e.g. put “Verdis” in alt_name.
You could also argue for boundary=border_zone instead of just boundary=disputed as Croatia is blocking access.
Except that no one is calling it that. ‘Pocket 3’ is just an internal name used on that one map showing the disputed areas. I don’t the goal here should be to hide names broadly used in the media just because we think it is silly to claim a nation in terra nullius. The name isn’t really what is disputed.
If the border guards have guns and the happy campers do not, then yes. It is politics. Both countries want their borders to be administered by them and their neighbour with no weird stuff going on in between. Both countries also refuse to settle a long standing border dispute. Hence the status quo.
Not formally though.
Verdis has this already. Liberland is a place=region which seems equally low-level and innocent.
1 Like
and national boundaries surrounding them should be mapped
that does not automatically mean that there is any sort of administrative boundary between them, as mentioned two involved countries agree at least that there is nothing between them and are happy to enforce it by force
I have no idea what you actually want or suggest. You removed boundary=administrative for Liberland, which is correct, but for some odd reason you then change the whole thing into a multipolygon instead of just fixing the boundary=*-tag. Why? Do you understand that there is at present no attempt to tag these places as administrative boundaries? Do you understand that a type=boundary relation does not automatically mean that boundary relation is administrative at any level? boundary=place in particular is not necessarily tied to admin levels.
Have you ever looked into these places deeper? It’s an interesting phenomenon. We don’t have to like this, but people do talk and write about these places (and even document them extensively); that alone warrants their inclusion on the map — just not as bona-fide countries.
There is no consensus here that there is any type of recognised administrative boundary, but that also isn’t what is mapped right now. Just that there are two named localities (or regions) with known bounds.
1 Like
I removed wrong boundary tag, I was not aware of any valid boundary= tag that would be worth adding it there so I added none.
Also, goal of my edit was to remove bogus data.
If appropriate boundary= tag exists, feel free to add one ( and I see that you did it, see Relation History: Siga (19735507) | OpenStreetMap )