.
The US and canada dispute this territory an area in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. Should this be added?
It is already mapped! Relation: ‪Strait of Juan de Fuca disputed area‬ (‪17733646‬) | OpenStreetMap
Oh my bad. Is it meant to show up on the normal map as well?
by normal map i mean: https://www.openstreetmap.org
There are lots of map styles using OSM data and several of those are available from osm.org itself.
One of those already has an issue created saying “we ought to show disputed boundaries”, so someone could work on that.
The challenge there is making the disputed boundaries obvious, but not overwhelming.
Another option is to create a new map style that just concentrates on showing disputed boundaries - you could do that.
byy normal map i meant the standard map at: https://www.openstreetmap.org
it shows similar disputes like the Dixon Entrance dispute to the north but not the Strait of Juan de Fuca one
For the avoidance of doubt, there are 8 map styles there and one of them (7th one down) is the one with the open issue “let’s show disputed borders”.
The one labeled “Standard” on openstreetmap.org is OpenStreetMap Carto. I guess the question OP is asking is why does that style show some disputes (the “Dixon Entrance dispute”) but not others (“Strait of Juan de Fuca”).
The answer seems to be that the Dixon Entrance dispute is mapped with contradictory/overlapping borders for the US and Canada, whereas the Strait of Juan de Fuca dispute is mapped as the Canadian border agreeing with the US one. Both disputes have the disputed area tagged with a separate boundary=disputed relation but that is not supported by Carto and therefore makes no difference to how the area is rendered.
So the obvious next question is why is the Dixon Entrance dispute mapped with overlapping borders but the Strait of Juan de Fuca dispute mapped with the US border? Is there a reason for that or is it just a mistake?
for what it is worth Disputed territories - OpenStreetMap Wiki mentions Dixon Entrance one and has Wikipedia article at Dixon Entrance - Wikipedia
Strait of Juan de Fuca is not mentioned in the OSM Wiki list from what I see. Wikipedia article is at Strait of Juan de Fuca - Wikipedia and mentions three competing schemas.
(why situation is different? should it be? I have no idea)
Yeah that was my question. Sorry for wording it poorly
If I had to guess, someone probably noticed that the Canada and U.S. boundary relations overlapped and “fixed” Canada. Over the years, we’ve occasionally had people swing by to helpfully inform us of “discrepancies” like this. Either they were unaware of the possibility of disputes between countries, or they made the assumption that border disputes only happen in less stable or agreeable[1] parts of the world. In fact, both countries are a cornucopia of disputes big and small, especially at the regional, local, and hyperlocal levels. The only reason OSM would intentionally exclude the Juan de Fuca disputed area from Canada would be in order to say that the U.S. has de facto control over the area, but I don’t recall seeing any discussion about that in either community. In the absence of more certain information, I’d expect some overlap.
There are multiple competing schemes for boundary disputes. boundary=disputed is the most common, but it has some fundamental problems. For one thing, it doesn’t distinguish between disputes about administrative boundaries versus other kinds of boundaries. (There are also disputes about some other kinds of boundaries, such as EEZ limits.) I don’t know of any data consumer that knows what to do with a boundary=disputed area, as opposed to that tag appearing on a way. The area representation seems like it could be useful for shading in an area, but it wouldn’t be a substitute for annotating the ways too, since most maps depict boundary lines rather than coloring in territories.
Some data consumers support an alternative method that relies on annotating the usual boundary=administrative relation’s individual member ways with some combination of disputed_by=*, recognized_by=*, and controlled_by=* tags. For example, OSM Americana currently shows the (U.S.) claim line wherever the two boundary relations touch (dropping off where the countries no longer border each other offshore):
If the relevant ways were tagged disputed=yes and/or disputed_by=CA/US, the style would react by not showing that portion of the boundary at all, as seen here in the disputed Colombia–Venezuela maritime limit:
As of whenever one learned world geography in elementary school. ↩︎