Tracked in Phabricator Task T113008 Thanks Amire80: ! Filed as phab:T113008. It isuseful that Amire80 put this under the attention and the solution of alternate colors is already a proven one so an ideal candidate as a solution. The alternate color explains this conflict, which is information that an independent medium like this should bring across. Pnorman ( talk) 08:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC) Reply No, indicating a border is disputed is showing there are multiple POVs that contradict each other. Countries often do not agree on if an area is disputed or not. Not making a choice is inherently taking a side - Guerillero ( talk) 01:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC) Reply Exactly - indicating a border is disputed is taking a point of view, just like representing a border as not disputed is. Aharoni ( talk) 19:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC) Reply There is no neutral way to display map borders.

(I tried to be as neutral as I could in this post ) ) - Amir E. I understand that at the moment Wikimedia's maps service probably just takes whatever OSM provides, but ideally it should do something similar to what the Wikipedias do and be as neutral as possible. For example, maps of Russia and Ukraine usually show Crimea in a special color - even in the Russian Wikipedia. Wikipedias usually show maps of disputed territories quite well. There are possibly more issues of this kind. The border between Israel and Syria is shown according to the Israeli POV.As a technically opposite example, there's no border in the middle of Cyprus (Greek POV), but there is a label for the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (Turkish POV).The border of Kosovo looks like a border of an independent country (Kosovan POV), but it doesn't have a country name (weird POV ) ).South Ossetia and Abkhazia are shown as countries, which is the Russian Federation POV.The border between Crimea and Kherson is shown as international, which is the Russian Federation POV.I noticed some controversial borders at :

Roadblock 2016 results wiki