[proposal] add disputed names

[jonahadkins]

Category

What kind of change is this?

Please select one of the following five options.

Consult Pull request merging criteria for a description of each category.

1. MAJOR schema change as defined in Schema versioning and stability.
2. MINOR schema change as defined in Schema versioning and stability.
3. Cosmetic change.
4. Documentation change by member.
5. Documentation change by Overture tech writer.

Major change release plan

TODO: For any non-MAJOR change, delete this whole section.

For a MAJOR change as defined in Schema versioning and stability,
indicate the expected release date, related minor change steps, and your
public documentation and messaging plan.

A. Expected release date for this MAJOR change

TODO.

B. Related MINOR change steps

• TODO. List each related MINOR change as a bullet.

C. Public documentation and messaging lan

TODO.

Description

Perspectives for Geographic Features

We are all familiar with disputes and perspectives as a function of dealing with administrative names and borders. There also exist complex perspectives over geographic features. Common examples that our users may need to support are the Sea of Japan and the Falkland Islands.

This PR proposes the following changes:

• adds is_disputed to the base theme to flag features like mountain points, polygonal water bodies, polygonal land bodies, etc. that may contain disputed name
• adds perspectives to the base theme, when used in conjunction with is_disputed this allows users to create the proper perspective view.
• adds disputed as a valid value to the rules for names. Disputed names may be a separate thing from the common or official names.

TODO.

Reference

List of relevant links to GitHub issues, PRs, and other documentation.

1. TODO.

Testing

Brief description of the testing done for this change showing why you are confident it works as expected and does not introduce regressions. Provide sample output data where appropriate.

TODO.

Checklist

Checklist of tasks commonly-associated with schema pull requests. Please review the relevant checklists and ensure you do all the tasks that are required for the change you made.

1. Add relevant examples.
2. Add relevant counterexamples.
3. Update any counterexamples that became obsolete. For example, if a counterexample uses property A but is not intended to test property A's validity, and you made a schema change that invalidates property A in that counterexample, fix the counterexample to align it with your schema change.
4. Update in-schema documentation using plain English written in complete sentences, if an update is required.
5. Update Docusaurus documentation, if an update is required.
6. Review change with Overture technical writer to ensure any advanced documentation needs will be taken care of, unless the change is trivial and would not affect the documentation.

Documentation Website

Update the hyperlink below to put the pull request number in.

[Docs preview for this PR.](https://dfhx9f55j8eg5.cloudfront.net/pr/<PUT THE PR # HERE>)

[jonahadkins]

here's a formatted example to use for feedback

  names:
    primary: Golfo de México
    common:
      en: Gulf of Mexico
      fr: Golfe du Mexique
      es: Golfo de México
      zh: 墨西哥湾
    rules:
      - variant: official
        accepted_by: US
        value: Gulf of America
      - variant: official
        disputed_by: MX
        value: Gulf of Mexico

[vcschapp]

@jonahadkins one thing I forgot if we discussed in all the back-and-forth: are we going to populate names perspectives with data for any features?

It would be good if the real life Gulf of Cartographer's Tears and Mount McTearly actually receive the names perspectives as a result of our data pipeline populating them correctly.

[vcschapp]

This is fully approved up. Merging.