[Minor] Add is_land and is_territorial to divisions

[stepps00]

Category

What kind of change is this?
Please select one of the following four options.
Consult Pull request merging criteria for a description of each category.

1. Cosmetic change.
2. Documentation change by member.
3. Documentation change by Overture tech writer.
4. Material change.

Description

This fixes a portion of https://github.com/OvertureMaps/tf-admin/issues/82 and replaces #294.

This pull request adds a is_land and is_territorial properties to division_area and division_boundary. This replaces a proposal to add is_processing and is_rendering, using less case-specific language in property names.

is_land: For the divisions theme, this field would indicate whether or not the feature geometry represents the non-maritime "land" boundary, which can be used for map rendering, cartographic display, and similar purposes.

is_territorial: For the divisions theme, this field would indicate whether or not the feature geometry represents the full territorial boundary or claim of a feature.

These new properties will eventually replace the existing class property, but class has not been removed (yet).

Examples and counter examples have been added. I've also attempted to add a contraint (anyOf) to the new is_territorial and is_land properties, requiring that one or both of those booleans must be true.

Reference

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

• https://github.com/OvertureMaps/tf-admin/issues/82
• [Minor] Division updates #294

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.

[stepps00]

cc @vcschapp / @TristanDiet-TomTom for sign off on the series of divisions schema changes.

[jonahadkins]

is_good ✅

[vcschapp]

Ship it!