Can you be more specific? 'ele=f' is not a valid tag as far as I know.

Hello,

No particular reason for 'dispute' over 'disputed'. The overall tag usage is fairly evenly split between them among the features I track, although 'disputed' is slightly more common. When I was actively working with these features, I just filtered for either tag so I don't have a preference either way really. Its certainly an inconsistency in the data that might be worth bulk updating some day.

Totally agree that boundary=disputed should be the tag for those segments. I should have made that fix when I added the dispute tag back.

In any case, I've now updated the boundary type and changed the tag to disputed.

Thanks for flagging this!
-Jeff

Hi zstadler,

In the interest of avoiding conflict I'll just pull out that relation for now.

-Jeff

Hi zstadler,

Forgive me if I’m mistaken as I’m not an expert on the conflict, but the DMZ line seems to correspond to the 1923 border which appears to be the last mutually agreed border while everything since has been enforced or de facto borders. So while this may not be an active claim by the disputants, in my opinion there is still validity to keeping it until a newer agreement supersedes it. Most other mapping platforms out there still render this DMZ line which at least adds some credibility to the claim that it is still relevant.

I totally appreciate that OSM is not the place to legislate conflicts and that is not the purpose of any of this mapping. This is a politically neutral project to map disputes as completely as possible in order to allow OSM administrative borders to be more flexible for downstream users where “on the ground” borders may not be desirable or even legal to display within a locality.

-Jeff

Hello zstadler and BodhidharmaI

Thanks for reaching out. I believe I’ve covered most of what you asked below. Let me know if you still have more questions. Disputed borders are complicated to map and tricky to visualize using typical OSM tooling unfortunately.

To preface, this is the tagging schema in general. For rendering purposes, consider a claimed_by or recognized_by tag to mean this is a solid border for those viewpoints, while a disputed_by tag means this border should not render at all for those viewpoints. Lastly, for the remaining viewpoints that are not specifically tagged one way or the other, a dashed line showing that this border is in dispute will be shown.

For the DMZ, none of the main parties currently claim it as their border, but it is one possible border with some historical precedent. So for rendering here, the intent is for uninvolved viewpoints to see it as a dashed line showing it as one of several possible borders. Since none of the main disputants claim this particular line, it is only marked with disputed_by tags in order to hide it for them as generally claimants should only see the one “correct” border for their viewpoint.

Here are direct answers to your questions as well BodhidharmaI

1. It means this is not considered a correct or possible border by the marked countries. The tag itself means do not render for those iso codes
2. Yes, this is not considered a valid border by the marked countries
3. Israel does not recognize this as a legitimate border
4. Yes, the countries marked believe the borders lie elsewhere and their viewpoints should be covered by other claims in the area.

Hello zstadler,

It sounds like the source on Natural Earth is generally from Palestine not recognizing Israel therefore not recognizing its province boundaries.

Regardless, to avoid further controversy on this particular relation, I've deleted it as you are not the first to be skeptical of it.

Appreciate you reaching out!
Jeff