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 osm.org/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 osm.org/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 osm.org/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 osm.org/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.

Hello, I noticed that you have changed some controversial administrative relationships in 148136531, ~6722, ~6944, ~7209 changeset.

According to de-facto, administrative districts should be attributed according to actual control. You can add dispute-related content, which is reflective of reality; but a district without actual control should not be added to the relationship. Also, when adding dispute content, I think you can just add relevant tags to the existing relation like 6753150 instead of creating some another duplicate relations.

I would like to restore these changesets but keep these "dispute" related content. You are welcome to discuss this in changeset 148153365.

Best wishes

我们不反对添加dispute相关内容，但是更应该添加在已有的relation 6753150中而不是新建一个关系，稍早前因为现实忙碌我尚未进一步变更相关内容或者评论，只做了退回处理，现在我才有时间进行更细一步的变更。对此我表示道歉。

你还应该注意到，此几个编辑中希望将部分没有实控的区域加入某个关系，这是不符合de-facto的。

我将会在先前的变更集留言。

I am not against adding dispute related content, but it would be more appropriate to add it to an existing relation 6753150 rather than creating a new one. I have not yet made any further changes to the content or comments due to the reality of my busy schedule and have only returned them, but I have now had time to make a more detailed change. I am sorry for this.

You should also note that a couple of these changesets want to add the area, which is not realistically controlled, to a relationship. It does not follow the de-facto.

I will leave a message in the relevant changeset.

乐

这应该是登山爱好者绘制的，如果您认为应当删除，那尽情去删。

Will DWG never give any response？Have DWG finished the "investigation"? I feel extremely sad to
the members of DWG.😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
DWG的同志们是不是不再关注这个地方了？是不是不再回复广大编辑者所关注的问题了？DWG的“调查”还要持续多久啊？我们对DWG很是失望啊。是不是DWG已经没有人了？？？😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅

😅 One year...

另外中国还在中沙群岛设立了自然保护区，见 https://www.mee.gov.cn/ywgz/zrstbh/zrbhdjg/201309/t20130926_260911.shtml 里的第49项

而且不仅是越南，菲律宾也没有声索中沙群岛（见马尼拉公报这篇报道的存档： https://archive.ph/20130113105304/http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/365375/saan-siya#selection-957.0-957.81 ）

可是你给的例子是西沙群岛和南沙群岛（越南称“黄沙群岛”和“长沙群岛”），与中沙群岛没关系，而且越南方面不声索中沙群岛。

中沙群岛这个概念在中国百姓或政府的眼中就是中沙大环礁海域（包括整个浅滩，英文称“Macclesfield Bank”）还有其他一些如黄岩岛的零散的岛礁。其次你应该注意到“中沙群岛的岛礁及其海域 (#6753119)”这个关系了吧，这是一个真实被中国确立的行政单位（详见中国国家统计局： http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/tjbz/tjyqhdmhcxhfdm/2013/46/4603.html ，中国行政区划代码为460323000000），其名称就是直接复制到OSM中的，这个行政区划的名称中“及其海域”直接就说明了整个区域都在这个行政区划内，这条线初衷就是用来表示它，本来这条线应该向外拓展，现状已经缩小到不能再小了。另外关于实际控制的情况，我们已知是外来船只是不可以靠近的，否则会被海警船驱赶；船只不可能将整个海域填满，那又是不现实的，所以这个实控是比较明显的。当然，有的国家基于其自身的利益倾向当然不愿意承认这些，不过这已经不在OSM讨论范围内了。