Changeset: 49413025
Green line rendering trick
Closed by SafwatHalaby
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (12275 en) |
---|
Discussion
-
Comment from zstadler
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/7304999 is the relation for the "Green Line" and https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/294464667 is already a member of it.
.
The "trick" of adding a new relation seems to be an example of "tagging for the renderer" and should be avoided. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer -
Comment from SafwatHalaby
Yes. this is explicitly tagging for the renderer, or more precisely for almost all renderers out there.
Despite being discouraged, it's better than a border which doesn't render. I left it that way till I find a better solution to the following problem:
The "green line" relation does not contribute to rendering at all because it lacks boundary=administrative, type=boundary.
Its members renders only because they happen to be part part of the Palestine relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1703814
But this little chunk is not part of the Palestine relation, so without the hack it becomes invisible on most maps.
This should somehow be fixed, but having two "outers" for the Palestine relation is wrong and so I didn't add it to the PL relation.
-
Comment from SafwatHalaby
Yes. this is explicitly tagging for the renderer, or more precisely for almost all renderers out there.
Despite being discouraged, it's better than a border which doesn't render. I left it that way till I find a better solution to the following problem:
The "green line" relation does not contribute to rendering at all because it lacks boundary=administrative, type=boundary.
Its members renders only because they happen to be part part of the Palestine relation: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1703814
But this little chunk is not part of the Palestine relation, so without the hack it becomes invisible on most maps.
This should somehow be fixed, but having two "outers" for the Palestine relation is wrong and so I didn't add it to the PL relation.
-
Comment from SafwatHalaby
Also, adding "administrative" to the green line is factually wrong, I think.
-
Comment from zstadler
If the 1949 armistice line is an historical line. Currently, it does not serve as an administrative boundary, not even a disputed boundary, because it was superseded by the Oslo agreements.
.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome says: "What it [the map] doesn't include is opinionated data like ratings, historical or hypothetical features, and data from copyrighted sources." -
Comment from SafwatHalaby
The reason I added a relation is to get it to render while avoiding adding "administrative" on the way itself. Do you have a better alternative?
-
Comment from zstadler
I think that the line should not be rendered.
-
Comment from SafwatHalaby
Is there anything different about the left just west of it? If not, why should one of them render, and the other shouldn't?
-
Comment from zstadler
If you refer to http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/288825225, then it is a member of a (disputed) boundary=administrative admin_level=2 relation - http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/1703814
-
Comment from SafwatHalaby
I think you're missing my point: Both 294464667 and 288825225 are disputed. So, there isn't anything special about either of them, both should be rendered the same. But only the western one renders, because only the western one is part of the PL relation which is tagged administrative.
-
Comment from SafwatHalaby
So I added this hack to make the Eastern one render. We have a very unique case a country (or pseudo-country if you will) has "two" borders. Putting them both in the PL relation is bad because it messes out outer/inner, so I had to do this hack.
-
Comment from zstadler
A dispute can only be on a boundary claimed by some entity. No claim implies no dispute. Way 288825225 is part of the boundary claimed by Palestine and disputed by Israel.
.
Way 294464667 is not claimed to be a boundary by any entity - neither Palestine nor Israel. Therefore it is not a boundary and should not be rendered.
.
If the Palestine claims its boundary at the location of 294464667, or any other location, then it should be used rather than 288825225. - Comment from SafwatHalaby
-
Comment from zstadler
I appreciate your listening and open-mindness!
-
Comment from SafwatHalaby
:)
-
Comment from SafwatHalaby
What was the historical rationale for having the green line split into two at this section?
-
Comment from zstadler
I'm not an historian, but I think there was a no man's land area/שטח מפורז between the Israeli-controlled and the Jordanian-controlled areas.
Relations (1)
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 |