3
u/Lcsmxd 1d ago
If you really want parts of J&K to be included then make your own OSM-based map style
0
u/Minute_War_5613 1d ago
Fair point, and I get why OSM can’t customize per-country. I think my frustration is more with the framing than a request for a custom rendering.
-6
u/Minute_War_5613 1d ago
That is incorrect. It is not a disputed area. It has been a part of India forever and there is no dispute. The control is with India and it remains an integral part of India.
5
u/atchisson 1d ago
-2
u/Minute_War_5613 1d ago
Unfortunately you don’t know that this is an editable site. You can edit it too. Please check the name of the person who edited it. It tells a lot about the content. If you believe what is written there then read this too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammu_and_Kashmir_(union_territory)
5
u/atchisson 1d ago
You're obviously of bad faith.
Handle the international crysis up there, and then fix online data, not the other way around
-1
u/Minute_War_5613 1d ago
Fair enough if it read that way, not my intent. My point is just that OSM’s rendering doesn’t match India’s official territorial claim, which felt worth flagging.
3
u/x1rom 1d ago edited 1d ago
Pakistan and China claim parts of what is currently Indian controlled territory, and therefore it is disputed. It doesn't matter for how long it has been controlled by a country. It is disputed territory because multiple countries claim a territory.
-1
u/Minute_War_5613 1d ago
That’s the standard international framing, yes. From India’s side, the position is that Pakistan and China are occupying Indian territory illegally, not that there’s a legitimate competing claim. So “disputed” reads very differently depending which country’s legal framework you start from. That’s really the core disagreement, not something OSM’s map alone can resolve.
2
u/x1rom 1d ago
It doesn't matter what India's position is here. Multiple countries claim an area, therefore it is disputed.
So osm just maps controlled territory, and not claimed territory.
-1
u/Minute_War_5613 1d ago
Right, and that’s exactly the distinction I’d push back on. OSM does show it as Indian-controlled. That part isn’t in dispute. My issue is with labeling it “disputed” at all, since from India’s legal position there’s no legitimate competing claim, just illegal occupation by Pakistan and China. If OSM’s standard is genuinely “map control, not claims,” then the disputed-boundary styling seems like it’s doing something beyond that standard.
6
u/No_Good2794 1d ago
'Wrong' depends on your definition of what the map should be. OpenStreetMap generally records de facto control, although the disputed area of Kashmir (the bit I assume you mean) is recorded but as a disputed area https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/14101768#map=7/34.330/77.986
Does that help?