https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1sk4y1i7Y9/

对了下视频是这里

The changeset has been reverted for political vandalism. Please follow de-facto when mapping. Happy mapping~

Hi, it's struggle to apply highway=trunk for all these road. Could you explain why you tagging it?

Please explain what is the confusion and why you do this changeset, making several relations broken and making the bounder against the actual situation?

I have mentioned that OSM follows the de-facto policy, so labels for China controlled area should be labeled in Chinses, same as Vietnam controlled area labeled in Vietnamese.

"OpenStreetMap maps world as it exists, and includes mapping borders and countries according to actual current situation and not a preferred or ideal situation." (osm.wiki/Disputed_territories)

OSM follows the de-facto policy which is equal to every country. China also has many historical material to support its claim from of old until in now, like 诸蕃志 said China has administrated this area since A.D.789 (under 振州's administration), 四海测验 (1279), 琼台外记 (Ming), 琼州府志 (1841), etc. If every country maps as its claim, the map would be in a mess. So, OSM follows the de-facto to map the real world rather than somebody's imagination world.

Hello @cngvng,
This area (including the Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands) is a disputed territory, which should be tagged in the language of the country that actually controls the territory; information about territorial disputes is typically noted in administrative relations and tags. Simply renaming elements to quotes like "quần đảo Hoàng Sa" is a destructive behavior, and does not help on labeling features on disputed territories. Therefore, I have restored some of the damaged data because OSM follows the "de facto" principle. If you still have questions, feel free to communicate.

Why do this?

你好，结合您先前做出的编辑，你似乎正在再一次删除实际存在的名称，但没有给出合理的理由。请你查看先前编辑集讨论中提及的关于争议地区的名称表示方法。

该变更集已在 changeset/153323493 中回退。

你好，结合您先前做出的编辑，你似乎正在再一次删除实际存在的名称，但没有给出合理的理由。请你查看先前编辑集讨论中提及的关于争议地区的名称表示方法。

该变更集已在 changeset/153323493 中回退。

在数年前我曾提醒过加英语的那个人，但是貌似没有用；如果您感兴趣，还可以看看中不边界附近

您好，注意到您在上次回复后似乎没有做出行动，请对此做出解释。

Thank you

Oh, yep, if you find any info in Vietnamese is wrong or inaccurate, please help correct it. I am not familiar with Vietnamese.

Discussed in changeset 148,136,531.

这下148136531讨论过了哈，再方块就不对了哈。

See changeset/148219213

OK, I see.

I also agree with your opinion, so I will do option 1 later, which is just a little different from the data now.

For these southeast islands/reefs, it's true that there isn't a line on "claim", but I also have almost not found any material in other languages about Vietnam's claims to individual islands near Malaysia separately (including no mention of Vietnam's claims in Wikipedia in other languages). Of course if you are quite sure, then just keep it.

There is a short version for 3 solutions, but I can't guarantee the quality of the translation, so I put the original text here:

一个就是把每对儿国家之间所有有争议的放一个dispute里面，一对儿国家一个relation（可以有子分区）；

一个是把一个国家声索但是没实控的给每个国家放单独的dispute，一个国家一个relation；

一个是难得弄，就不弄。

谢谢您回复嘞。

是的，如果我没有理解错误，您希望标识"dispute"来表示“全部声索区域”；标识"dispute"是正确的，因为先前您的编辑集中存在尝试将争议地区加入行政边界关系中的行为，这些编辑集才被留意到。

目前，我注意到您的“Tranh chấp chủ quyền Việt Nam của quần đảo Trường Sa”貌似包含了如南通礁等非越南声索区域，这貌似仍是错误的。

我认为可以有3种方案：

♦️ 第一种与现在的数据差不多。参考中国与印度也有争议地区，它被表示在 relation/12931502 中，我希望可以参考它进行标注，也就是：

1. 为西沙、南沙分别创建关系，包含西沙、南沙的所有边界，作为outer；
2. 创建一个最大的关系，包含所有中越争议地区的边界，并作为outer，再将西沙、南沙以subarea加入其中；

现在的数据大致与前文所述相符。不过这样子搞比较复杂，还有其他国家的争议地区。

♦️ 第二种则是为越南声索，但未实控的区域创建一个关系；最后再创建一个包含南海诸国所有争议区域的关系（而所有越南已经实控的和中国已经实控的可直接加入各自的boundary=administrative关系中）。因为南海不止中国和越南有争议，还有菲律宾、马来西亚等，他们并不是全部声索整个群岛，每个国家的范围不一样。这样标注可能会减少互相重叠的区域。

♦️ 第三种即每个国家都不创建此类关系，因为过于复杂。

Thanks for replying.

Yes, if I understand you correctly, you want to add "dispute" to indicate "all claim territory"; the using of "dispute" tag is correct. Those edits were noticed because there were attempts to add disputed areas to the boundary=administrative relation in your previous edits.

Currently, I notice that your "Tranh chấp chủ quyền Việt Nam của quần đảo Trường Sa" appears to include non-Vietnamese claimed areas such as Nantong Jiao (aka. Louisa Reef), which still appears to be wrong.

I suggest that there could be 3 possible solutions for us:

♦️ The first one makes minimal differ with current OSM data. Referenced to the fact that China also has disputed territory with India, which was mapped in relation/12931502, we can imitate its tagging method, so that we could:

1. Separately create relations for Xisha (Paracel Islands) and Nansha (Spratly Islands), containing all the boundaries of disputed islands in Xisha (Paracel Islands) and Nansha (Spratly Islands) as their outer;
2. Create a maximal relationship that contains all the boundaries of the disputed territory between Vietnam and China as outer, and then add Xisha (Paracel Islands) and Nansha (Spratly Islands) as subarea;

Current data situation is generally consistent with the above solution. If we apply this, we could just change a little to the data, but we need to think more about other countries' dispute in this area such as Malaysia or Philippine.

♦️ The second would be to create a relation for the territories that Vietnam claims, but does not actually control; and then finally create a relation that includes all these disputed areas for China South Sea (or may called South China Sea). While all territories already controlled by China and Vietnam, have been already added as member of "boundary=administrative" relation directly. This is because the China South Sea is not only disputed by China and Vietnam, but also by the Philippines, Malaysia, etc. They do not all claim the entire archipelago/islands, and each country has a different scope. Mapping in this way may reduce areas that overlap each other.

♦️ The third one is a "lazy solution" that both of us won't create any relation because of dealing with complex territorial disputes is too troublesome.