Changeset: 33040192
Corrijo etiquetas de límites marítimos diversos.
Closed by jptolosa
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (8491 es) |
---|---|
source | survey |
Discussion
-
Comment from trial
Hi, you've changed the border_type from eez to administrative, this is wrong, as the sea-side territorial boundary is the 12 NM, not the 200 NM boundary. As stated in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dmaritime#Territorial_sea_.2812.C2.A0nm_zone.29 :
This line should also be member of the border relation surrounding the country. -
Comment from jptolosa
Hi, the line surrounding the country 200 nm offshore wasn't made by me. I've just changed the tags of this line from eez to territorial according peruvian laws (Peru is not suscribed to UNCLOS). But my change doesn't affect rendering.
Greetings. -
Comment from trial
Hi, that's exactly what I'm saying: the 200 NM (i.e. the previous version) as eez is correct.
It's the eez border, and it was correct.
Do you mean that Peru considers its eez as being territorial water?
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters, you're right but the rules for boundaries (at least on shore!) is to set the highest tag in the hierarchy (if a boundary separates two districts of two countries, the level is set to country).
Using this rule, the border_type should remain eez.
http://www.marineregions.org/eezdetails.php?eez_id=138 shows the eez, and that's correct.
Moreover according to http://www.indexmundi.com/peru/maritime_claims.html, its a claim, not a decision.BTW, I was looking at eez already described in OSM, using overpassturbo :
http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/c0B
And suddendly I saw the (to me at least) strange territorial water of Peru.
If you don't say boundary_type=administrative the display is not correct?
Then the renderers have to be updated, not the data - I mean 200 NM=EEZ). -
Comment from jptolosa
OK, you're right. I change 200 nm boundary to eez. However, this change doesn't affect osm render, because the countries are "enclosed" by a boundary relation: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Relation:boundary
The problem is the robot-generated-12nm-border from Peru coast was deleted by other user, I think.
-
Comment from trial
indeed, for two reasons, the one you said and the one I said (eez are not rendered, not even on OpenSeaMap... yet).
Normally we should create a UNCLOS territorial water, describe Peru using this 12 NM border, add a "second Peru" for the claimed part, right? It would be neutral. -
Comment from 4rch
Peru hasn't ratified the "Law of the Sea" so it isn't bound to the 12 nm rule for territorial waters.
The Peruvian territorial waters currently measures 200 nautical miles (see Peruvian laws, ICJ decision Chile vs. Peru, etc.) Please be careful when you edit boundaries. Thanks.
http://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/table_summary_of_claims.pdfGreetings from Germany!
-
Comment from jptolosa
According [OSM rules](http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dmaritime#Territorial_sea_.2812.C2.A0nm_zone.29) territorial water is 12nm for all countries. 200 nm of territorial sea is only a claim and OSM should be a neutral map. Other countries that claims 200nm of territorial sea appears until 12 nm solely. Why Peru is the exception? Please consider this before making your last change.
-
Comment from trial
as jptolosa87 said, this is a claim and 4rch refers to a claim too. Being neutral doesn't mean to accept the de facto invasion of the EEZ! Grüße aus Frankreich/Greetings from France (apologize for the strange language - German - today it's the celebration of the end of WWI - a good day for trying to deescalate potential conflicts)
-
Comment from 4rch
@jptolosa87: This is a informations page, these are no rules. I've written some parts of this page and I can say that you've misunderstood what I've written on this page.
-
Comment from 4rch
@trial: 12 nautical miles limit of Chile, etc. is also a claim. All boundaries in the world are just claims.
-
Comment from trial
@4rch
no, there are international agreements and conventions, for instance the outer limit of a EEZ is 200 NM from the baseline (by default), for territorial waters it's usually 12 NM, 6 or 3 in some areas. That some countries may want something different (like the 200 NM extension of territorial waters), shouldn't be reflected by OSM expect if there is some consensus. If the referenced document, you can see for instance Ireland, UK and France making a common proposal for their shared waters.
About your comment to jptolosa87, I think you should explain what in why and maybe reformulate this part on the wiki (may be you did in a pm). -
Comment from 4rch
@trial: Peru hasn't ratified the convention (UNCLOS) so it isn't bound to it. As you've already said, the territorial waters usually measure 12 nautical miles, but not always...
-
Comment from 4rch
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part17.htm
No sentence that the convention is mandatory for every state in the world.
-
Comment from jptolosa
@4rch
My changeset is according with OSM rules. Please read it here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dmaritime#Territorial_sea_.2812.C2.A0nm_zone.29
This boundary type was always set in EEZ. Why you insist otherwise?
- 363535429, v1
- 363535430, v1
- 119290737, v3
- 119290739, v4
- 119290741, v4
- 119425976, v3
- 119427700, v3
- 119427701, v3
- 179856192, v6
- 186602435, v5
- 186602438, v4
- 199201478, v2
- 274918286, v2
- 274919891, v2
- 286221061, v4
- 300728622, v5
- 323930545, v2
- 363533633, v2
- 363533639, v2
- 48897865, v7
Relations (2)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |