Firstly, features with juxtaposed control (Wikipedia) refers to features that are geographically/legally located in some host country but are operated with the jurisdiction of some foreign country.
Diplomatic offices are one kind of such features with juxtaposed control, where the diplomatic mission sender has some jurisdiction on what happens inside the office, to the extent permitted by the various diplomatic agreements. (This may be misleading.)
I then noticed that some border controls are also juxtapositionally controlled; examples include the CN-HK Shenzhen Bay Border Control where a section of the access road is located in CN but applies HK jurisdiction, and the CN-MO Hengqin Border Control where a large section of the access roads are located in CN but applies MO jurisdiction.
There may be other examples elsewhere which I am not aware of.
There is interest in tagging/indicating these juxtaposed features so e.g. country rules may apply correctly.
Seeing that diplomatic offices are currently using the country=*tag , I am thinking that juxtapositionally controlled features in general should also use this same tag to indicate their juxtaposition, storing the actual country which applies its jurisdiction onto the features. With this, the interpretation of which country the feature belongs to would first check the country=* tag, and then by existing boundary=administrative + ISO3166-1=* tags.
Juxtapositionally controlled features should be very rare globally, but this is something that can only be discussed on a global level. How does the community feel about this idea/proposal?
The section of roads highlighted in red is geographically/legally located in CN, but applies HK jurisdiction. There is currently no way to indicate that these roads apply HK jurisdiction, and thatâs something this idea/proposal aims to improve.
Are you interested only in customs and border controls, such as juxtaposed controls? Or is this about the broader phenomenon of extraterritoriality, such as diplomatic missions?
Using your suggested words, I am trying to describe extraterrestrial border controls where, after passing through the checkpoint, a foreign jurisdiction applies even though geographically one is still located inside the host country. In other words, after passing through the checkpoint, when reporting a crime, one should call the cops of the foreign country instead of the host country.
Something similar would be the US border preclearance. I am not too familiar with the details, but my understanding is that, even with the preclearance, passengers are still subject to host jurisdiction until the vehicle enters actual US territory. Which means itâs still not the thing I am looking for.
I understand your issue as the land itself belongs to country A, where an object (in your case a road) is under jurisdiction of country B. For example I would get a speeding ticket from country B, not A or the bridge was build based on the applicable regulations of country B.
If so, I would ad a jurisdiction=* to the effected object. I could also imagine to specify it further with jurisdiction:*=* if like you get speeding ticket from country A, but building regulations are different. country does not sounds right to me.
Just for clarity, I think spellcheck has been over-excited on this thread - âextra-terrestrialâ should read âextra-territorialâ.
extra-terrestrial - different planets
extra-territorial - different countries
Iâm not sure if there is a need to apply rules for such cases. Many jurisdictions, whether national or not, have arrangements somewhat like this. Look at the border here: OpenStreetMap The fire service in my city also serves the surrounding areas outside the city. One municipality might take full responsibility for the maintenance / repair of a bridge on the municipal boundary, even if ownership is split. Some countries allow âhot pursuitâ across borders.
Importantly, I think that in many cases, errant behaviour of any kind is generally frowned upon at / near borders. If, after crossing the border,I verbally abuse the border guards of the country I am leaving, then the country I am entering just might refuse me entry.
It would be more productive if you ask this locally first, instead of confusing the international community with every weird case. Avoid inaccurate comparisons, as Eurostar juxtaposed control or US Preclearance has been explicitly discussed to be different by the public.
@Minh_Nguyen Itâs more than law enforcement. The land, and road crossing over sea, inside S has been rented/leased to H. Effectively it has been âcededâ for 40 years, renewable. It has been compared to a West Berlin case on the Stahnsdorfer BrĂŒcke overpass. SteinstĂŒcken - Wikipedia
The land for the border crossing is already drawn as inside the boundary=administrative of H, although I donât know how or whether this was discussed, while it may seem obvious to those users in the past. So I believe the question comes from making them âconsistentâ, to show the boundary=administrative also applies to the road on sea.
If itâs not the same legal powers or situation as boundary=administrative , the land part may need to be reviewed on the contrary?
You can use the key controlled_by (with a country code as value) to indicate which country exercises jurisdiction over a mapped object. You could also consider creating a boundary=border_zone relation.
But be aware that there are many cases where a country still has jurisdiction between the border checkpoint and the actual border. Often there is some agreement that allows country X to do border checks within certain territory of country Y, where country X only gets some limited jurisdiction w.r.t. the border checks themselves, and country Y retains general jurisdiction related to the territory. For example, the Netherlands and Germany have agreed many such joint border checking areas that do not affect territorial jurisdiction.
International borders and treaties are supposed to be irregular. I donât see how global users are confused by what I am asking for. In fact, this forum is the best place to gather international examples of how extraterritorial control works irl, to better inform us for any future mapping decisions.
CN-specific extraterritorial quirks may be discussed locally, but this post can still stay. Discussion can happen simultaneously on both levels, with this post helping other international users.
in Rome there are some extraterritorial areas from the Vatican, including 2 hospitals, a monastery, etc. hereâs a picture of a sign (no border controls of course)
