trial's Comments
Changeset | When | Comment |
---|---|---|
33040192 | almost 10 years ago | as jptolosa87 said, this is a claim and 4rch refers to a claim too. Being neutral doesn't mean to accept the de facto invasion of the EEZ! Grüße aus Frankreich/Greetings from France (apologize for the strange language - German - today it's the celebration of the end of WWI - a good day for trying to deescalate potential conflicts) |
26871530 | almost 10 years ago | You seem to have added details on a non existing track / disused track.
|
33040192 | almost 10 years ago | indeed, for two reasons, the one you said and the one I said (eez are not rendered, not even on OpenSeaMap... yet).
|
33040192 | almost 10 years ago | Hi, that's exactly what I'm saying: the 200 NM (i.e. the previous version) as eez is correct.
BTW, I was looking at eez already described in OSM, using overpassturbo :
|
33040192 | almost 10 years ago | Hi, you've changed the border_type from eez to administrative, this is wrong, as the sea-side territorial boundary is the 12 NM, not the 200 NM boundary. As stated in osm.wiki/Tag:boundary%3Dmaritime#Territorial_sea_.2812.C2.A0nm_zone.29 :
|
30021583 | about 10 years ago | Well, the comment is valid, but it's not you that set the wrong boundary level for osm.org/way/224452841. |
30021583 | about 10 years ago | Please DON'T touch the boundary at sea side except if you exactly know what you're doing.
|
33204136 | about 10 years ago | un arbre ne s'appelle pas "arbre", c'est un arbre.
|
13786903 | about 10 years ago | bonjour, les défébrillateurs doivent être tagués
|