*they have not been mapped

Peruvian laws is only an unilateral claim solely. However, 12nm claim is according UNCLOS, international laws, etc. Antartic claims are too unilateral claims and it has not been mapped for neutrality.
Remove boundary_type=* tags is better.

It seems you just want impose the peruvian version of the things. According chilean view point this is part of Peru's EEZ, like as the ICJ point view. Therefore, the correct tagging is eez border_type by default. Peruvian claim already represented by the boundary relation. According to you Peru's EEZ doesn't exist! Your point view is not convincing for changing for eez to territorial maritime border_type.

Faulty secondary sources? You're definitely wrong. This information appears in that pdf and it also appear here: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/137/17958.pdf
"Outer Triangle" is part of Peru's EEZ. You can read that clearly.
By last, you changeset is not according with OSM rules mapping.

@4rch
My changeset is according with OSM rules. Please read it here: boundary=maritime#Territorial_sea_.2812.C2.A0nm_zone.29
This boundary type was always set in EEZ. Why you insist otherwise?

Thanks for revert some changes of madek, but please don't move PIFM and Hito Nº1 boundary markers. I had them correctly georeferenced.

It seems you don't know about the dispute. It does refer to 200 nm maritime boundary in the disputed area and it textually say the "outer triangle" being part of the Peru's economic exclusive zone.

According ICJ decision in Peru v. Chile, the southern maritime limit is EEZ, not territorial sea. Both Peru and Chile have abided the ICJ decision, then the correct tags in this stretch is boundary=maritime and boundary_type=eez.
Greetings!

According [OSM rules](boundary=maritime#Territorial_sea_.2812.C2.A0nm_zone.29) territorial water is 12nm for all countries. 200 nm of territorial sea is only a claim and OSM should be a neutral map. Other countries that claims 200nm of territorial sea appears until 12 nm solely. Why Peru is the exception? Please consider this before making your last change.

Lo que hice yo fue crear un par de relaciones del tipo restriction, utilizando el tag no_entry para prohibir el acceso al complejo residencial por las mencionadas calles y el tag no_exit para prohibir la salida estando uno adentro.

Hola, el mensaje completo es un poco largo para ponerlo acá, pero el detalle de los cambios que me dijo había que hacer sería lo siguiente:
El Complejo Habitacional Parque Zapicán, delimitado por las calles San Fructuoso (norte), Zapicán (oeste), Sante Fe (sur) y el Hospital Vilardebó (este); tiene un único acceso vehicular por el norte (intersección calles Abayubá y San Fructuoso). Según él, los accesos (y también la salida desde el complejo habitacional) por las calles "Continuación Abayubá" y "Continuación Melo" no están habilitados para vehículos. El acceso es sólo peatonal por esas calles.

Hola, me fijé que extendiste la autopista de Copiapó a Caldera más al este de donde acaba realmente la concesión. En Google Street View puedes ver claramente que la concesión acaba en el punto que señalé yo (justo antes de empalmar con el By Pass Copiapó).
Saludos.

OK, you're right. I change 200 nm boundary to eez. However, this change doesn't affect osm render, because the countries are "enclosed" by a boundary relation: osm.wiki/Relation:boundary

The problem is the robot-generated-12nm-border from Peru coast was deleted by other user, I think.

Hi, the line surrounding the country 200 nm offshore wasn't made by me. I've just changed the tags of this line from eez to territorial according peruvian laws (Peru is not suscribed to UNCLOS). But my change doesn't affect rendering.
Greetings.