Changeset: 119305759
Corrected because the wrong place name was entered.
Closed by protectrule
Tags
changesets_count | 1 |
---|---|
created_by | iD 2.20.4 |
host | https://www.openstreetmap.org/edit |
imagery_used | Bing Maps Aerial |
locale | ja |
source | gps |
Discussion
-
Comment from user_5239402
Stop vandalism
On the ground principle
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Map_what.27s_on_the_ground read -
Comment from user_5239402
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputed_territories Dokdo is korea territories not Takeshima just rules is On the ground principle
-
Comment from protectrule
@bobertko2
No clear evidence has been presented by the Korean side to show that Korea had effective control over Takeshima prior to 1905, when Japan reaffirmed its effective control and territorial rights over the island. -
Comment from protectrule
South Korea refuses to debate the issue in an international tribunal. This is because Korea has no grounds to deny that Takeshima is Japanese territory and not Korean territory. If it really is Korea's territory, it can be debated in an international tribunal, but Korea will not do that.
-
Comment from user_5239402
Draw things as they are on the ground. Do not enter incorrect data or remove correct data just because it will help a map renderer, a navigation system or some other data consumer which has problem with the correct data. They are continually improving, don't bend the data to make it look prettier, just be patient, try a different data consumer or report the issue to the data consumer it concerns (example for the Openstreetmap-Carto style) .
- Comment from user_5239402
-
Comment from user_5239402
On the ground principal, Dokdo is currently effectively controlled by the Korean government. The Japanese cannot go to Dokdo.
-
Comment from user_5239402
Since the current physical situation must be indicated, information must be indicated based on the criteria of the effective control of any dispute. # Netizens from all over the world oppose it with patriotism and national sentiment, but the Open Street Map only marks it as the territory of the country if the occupation exists and the residents of the occupied area acknowledge it.
-
Comment from user_5239402
The 2013 OSMF position paper, Information for officials and diplomats of countries and entities with disputed territories, does not truly establish any new rules for mappers, but simply refers to the on the ground principle.
Currently, we record one set that, in OpenStreetMap contributor opinion, is most widely internationally recognised and best meets realities on the ground, generally meaning physical control. In areas without clearly defined borders, the line is approximate. Our database structure enables map makers to easily ignore this set and substitute another more appropriate to your needs.
— OSMF, 2013 -
Comment from user_5239402
This is a regional notice announcing the incorporation of Dokdo into Japanese territory.
Japan had been at war with Russia over its interests in Manchuria and the Korean peninsula since 1904, and needed the island to meet its military needs in the face of possible maritime clashes with Russia in the East Sea. Japan thus attempted to incorporate Dokdo in 1905 through this notice, claiming that the island was terra nullius.
However, Shimane Prefecture Public Notice No. 40 was issued as part of Japan’s gradual aggression against Korea’s sovereign rights. Because the issuance of the regional notice was an illegal act that infringed on Korea’s territorial sovereignty over Dokdo, which Korea had firmly established historically, the notice had no legal force under international law.
- Comment from protectrule
-
Comment from protectrule
In the drafting process of the San Francisco Treaty, Korea requested the U.S., which had drafted the treaty, to include Takeshima in the area to be abandoned by Japan. However, the U.S. explicitly rejected Korea's request, stating that Takeshima was not to be treated as part of Chosun but as Japanese territory. This is made clear by diplomatic documents released by the U.S. government.
-
Comment from protectrule
From 1954 to the present, we have suggested three times that the matter be referred to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), but the Korean side has refused on all occasions. It is extremely regrettable that Korea, which plays an important role in various international fora, is turning its back on solutions based on international law.
-
Comment from user_5239402
January 29, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Index Number (SCAPIN) 677
This is a memorandum which mandated the governmental and administrative separation of Dokdo from Japan after the end of World War II.
The Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers mandated that “…Japan is defined to include … excluding (a) Utsuryo (Ullung) Island, Liancourt Rocks (Take Island) [Dokdo] and Quelpart (Saishu or Cheju) Island …”
June 22, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers Index Number (SCAPIN) 1033
This is a memorandum following SCAPIN 677, mandating the prohibition of Japanese vessels or personnel from coming within 12 nautical miles from Dokdo.
-
Comment from user_5239402
Conclusion of the Treaty of Peace with Japan
The Treaty of Peace with Japan is a treaty which the Allied Powers concluded with Japan at the close of World War II.
Article 2(a) provides that “Japan recognizing the independence of Korea, renounces all right title and claim to Korea, including the islands of Quelpart, Port Hamilton and Dagelet.”
Among Korea’s approximately 3,000 islands, these three islands have been referred to as examples, and therefore, the mere fact that Dokdo is not named explicitly in the said article, does not suggest that Dokdo is not included among those territories of Korea that have been separated from Japan.
-
Comment from protectrule
The absence of Takeshima in the said treaty is proof that Japan has not renounced it. It is a dangerous idea to interpret something that is not mentioned in the treaty without permission.
-
Comment from protectrule
The Korean side claims that the Allied Powers did not recognize Takeshima as Japan's territory with the above-mentioned SCAPIN as one of the grounds for Korea's territorial claims to Takeshima. However, it is clearly stated in both SCAPINs that the SCAPINs should not be interpreted as indicating the policy of the Allied Powers regarding the final determination of territorial ownership, and such a point of view is not true at all.
-
Comment from protectrule
The San Francisco Peace Treaty, which came into effect afterwards, established the territory of Japan. It is clear from this that the issue of ownership of Takeshima is not affected by the treatment of Takeshima prior to the entry into force of the said Treaty.
-
Comment from user_5239402
SCAPIN
The definition of Japan contained in this directive shall also apply to all future directives, memoranda and orders from this Headquarters unless otherwise specified therein.
AG 091 (29 Jan 46)GS
SCAPIN 677/1
MEMORANDUM FOR : JAPANESE GOVERNMENT
SUBJECT : Governmental and Administrative Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan1. Reference:
- a. Memorandum for the Japanese Government, AG 091(29 Jan 46)GS(SCAPIN 677), 29 January 1946, subject, "Governmental and Administraive Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan".
- b. Memorandum for the Japanese Government, AG 091(26 Mar 46)GS(SCAPIN 841), 26 March 1946, subject, "Governmental and Administraive Separation of Certain Outlying Areas from Japan".2. Paragraph 3 of reference a, as amended by reference b, is further amended so that the Ryukyu (Nansei) Islands north of 29° north latitude are included within the area defined as Japan for the purpose of that directive.
3. The Japanese Government is directed to resume governmental and administrative jurisdiction over these islands, subject to the authority of the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. -
Comment from protectrule
Do not present it as a credible source with only a convenient interpretation.
-
Comment from protectrule
The "MacArthur Line" was abolished on April 25, 1952, and three days later, on April 28, 1952, the Peace Treaty came into effect, which inevitably made the order to suspend administrative authority and other measures ineffective.
The Korean side claims that the Allied Powers did not recognize Takeshima as Japan's territory based on the above-mentioned SCAPIN, and this is one of the grounds for Korea's territorial rights over Takeshima. However, it is clearly stated in both SCAPINs that the SCAPINs should not be interpreted as indicating the policy of the Allied Powers regarding the final determination of territorial ownership, and such a point of view is not true at all.
Relations (1)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |