Well spotted, and thanks!

Hello,
Please don't use the live server for test data. If you want to test the API, you can use http://api06.dev.openstreetmap.org/
Best Regards,
Andy

Hi,
I notice you've changed the tagging on node/283150451/history (I'm guessing that you didn't actually visit it). If you're sure that the change is valid, you might want to mention it to the previous mapper who's still very much active in the area.
Also a changeset comment a bit more descriptive than "a few minor edits" would be really helpful.
Cheers,
Andy

Hi Aboudrar Said,
Could you please use meaningful changeset comments? Most on @Aboudrar Said/history have just a comment of "mapping", which doesn't tell anyone what you changed, where you changed it or what the source was.
OSM is a collabrative project; we need to work together to create the best map. Please do use meaningful changeset comments in the future; it will help other mappers greatly.
Best Regards, Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.

Hello,
I'm writing to you on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the boundaries of Morocco, and I'm sending this message to many of the mappers who have edited in the area or expressed an interest, including you.

We're aware that there is disputed territory in the region. Most notably the area covered by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara , and also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceuta and other areas to the north.

First, it's worth mentioning https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf . That explains that what matters most to OSM in terms of names, borders and boundaries is the "on the ground" rule. For example, if a majority of the population of an area speaks language "a" then it makes sense for OSM's "name" tag to be in language "a" (though of course other name tags such as name:b, name:c etc. can also be used to make maps in other languages). Similarly, if the people of an area consider themselves to be part of country "a" and country "a" does indeed have control over the area, it makes sense for the area to be part of country "a" (and only country "a") in OSM.

Potential problems in the area covered by the Morocco admin_level 2 relation relation/3630439 include:

1) That relation includes not only the part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Sahara currently administered by Morocco (the part west of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 ), it also includes the part of that territory east of it too. Is this correct? It seems at odds with OSM's "on the ground" rule, and with the UN peacekeepers' position described at http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/missions/minurso/background.shtml .

2) That relation also includes territories administered by Spain such as Ceuta and Melilla. What evidence is there that Morocco controls these territories and that Spain does not?

Another major question, (largely dependant on the answer to (1) above) is:

3) If the area east of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Wall_%28Western_Sahara%29 isn't part of Morocco, what status should it have? http://osm.mapki.com/history/relation.php?id=195838 did represent this territory and had several different admin levels before it was deleted.

The DWG would be grateful for your opinions on these matters. You can either reply here or, if you prefer you can email data@osmfoundation.org directly and we'll read through all the replies.

Best Regards,

Andy Townsend (SomeoneElse) on behalf of OSM's Data Working Group.