By the way, there is no need to add an "area=yes" to inner members of a relation, such as way/1078136304
In fact, this is flagged as an error in MapRoulette
https://maproulette.org/challenge/28327/task/133580770

אני ממפה הכי נכון ברגע המיפוי. אני לא מוצא טעם לעשות את אותה עבודה פעמיים. אם זה מה שמיפיתי, זה מה שאני ראיתי בשטח

צרפתי תמונות של המערות שמיפיתי
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/IHM_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94.jpeg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/IHM_%D7%97%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%AA_%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94_1.jpeg
ראית אותן בשטח?

תיקנתי

מאגורת מים היא
man_make=cistern
או "בור" ב
IHM

Reverted changesets 122105913 and 122106178 according to "Map what's on the ground" and the official source.

See changeset/123752913

Don't you think it's their problem? :-)

This map is a government product, but it is not a primary source for this kind of information.

By the way, I could not find out when was the last update of the background map.

Anyway, "רמת טראמפ" is included in the official list of Israeli localities.

See
https://data.gov.il/dataset/citiesandsettelments/resource/5c78e9fa-c2e2-4771-93ff-7f400a12f7ba

OSM is about "Map what's on the ground"

See osm.wiki/Good_practice#Map_what's_on_the_ground

Hello,

I've just passed by this place, and the road sign says "רמת טראמפ"

לפי הכלל של "האמת בשטח", נראה לי שיש להחזיר את השם הזה.

שלום דוד-צבי,

בעריכה זו התחלת למפות, בין השאר, את "הפטרול של יצהר".

נכון לעכשיו, הפטרול מאד שבור, כפי שאפשר לראות בתוצאות השאילתה הזו:

https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1k9N

אולי תוכל להשלים את המיפוי?

Thank you, Jeff!

הי,

הקישור לתמונה בגוגל דרייב אינו זמין לכלל
way/220925658

שלום Simon Eldor

תודה על תרומתך ל
OSM

בעתיד, אנא המנע מהכנסת תאריכים לתאור נקודות עניין.

תודה!

Hello MichaelTrach133

Please avoid entering personal information to OSM, such as the description "May 7, 2022"

שלום רםרםרם

אנא המנע מהכנסת מידע אישי ל
OSM
כמו התאור
"דרום 11.2.22"

Hi Jeff,

It seems like we agree that OSM is not about capturing potential future political agreements.

Could you summarize why, in your opinion, this relation should be part of OSM despite the fact that it does not fall under the definition of a disputed border, since no nation is calming it.

- zstadler

Thanks Jeff for the elaborated answer.

It seems that the justification for mapping the DMZ line is for historic and/or future purposes, as you wrote:
> 

For the DMZ, none of the main parties currently claim it as their border, but it is one possible border with some historical precedent.

boundary=historic says:
> Note that though solely historic objects should not be mapped as it is outside of scope of OSM (unlike projects like Open Historical Map), it makes sense to keep for some time old boundaries after administrative division change as form of note to make clear that there was a recent change of borders in a given location.

Since this line does not have, AFAIK, any on-the -ground presence for more than 50 years, I suggest this relation to be removed from OSM. You may choose to copy it to Open Historical Map.

You also wrote:
> 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.

I believe that OSM is not the appropriate platform for rendering potential political solutions for this decades-old conflict.

@BodhidharmaI see the source tag for this changeset -
https://www.loc.gov/item/92682948/

May I add that relation/13574166 is a strange disputed boundary. I believe a boundary cannot be "disputed" when it is not "claimed_by" any country.

Specifically, Syria is not claiming this boundary. The Syrian claims were apparently mapped by relation/13574167

Your questions are:

Q1. What does "disputed_by" represent here (at the boundary of a DMZ)?
A1. This question should be directed to the original mapper.

Q2. Does it mean DMZ itself is not recognized by these countries?
A2. This question should be directed to the original mapper.

Q3. In which case, why IL?
A3. This question should be directed to the original mapper.

Q4. Or does it mean the boundary is disputed (i.e. the disputing countries believe it should be elsewhere)?
A4. This question should be directed to the original mapper.

I've copied your question to the discussion of the original changeset for the original mapper to be aware of them and respond.