Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

>> it is widely internationally recognised that Russia now controls Crimea. When we talk about boundary recognition the meaning is completely different. The UK Government’s position on Crimea

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

It seems to be a good idea to show the disputed boundaries in a different style. For example, if a captain of a see ship visits a port in Crimea and then one in Ukraine, as far as I know, he may have legal problems and the ship could be delayed in Ukraine. A captain from say the Southeast Asia

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

Hi, Am 24/11/2018 um 15.09 schrieb Andy Townsend: > I'm not actually aware of a situation where countries have said "this > bit belongs equally to both of us" (I'd be interested to hear of any > examples, actually), though there are plenty of places where they say "I > think it belongs to me, and

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

24. Nov 2018 15:09 by ajt1...@gmail.com : > >> >> 2. International boundaries DO sometimes overlap.>> > > > > > I'm not actually aware of a situation where countries have said "this > bit belongs equally to both of us" (I'd be

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

"international recognition" allows to eliminate for example Sealand (and othermicronation nonsense). It also allows to skip on the ground survey in cases where everybody agrees where the border are. It also allows to map borders in areas without physical control (due to lack of inhabitants

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

On 23/11/2018 21:03, Tomas Straupis wrote: Ok. So do I understand OSMF position is this: All the answers here are "my personal understanding of OSM's collective position, based on many years to and fro in mailing lists, wiki pages, etc. etc.".  Some of the questions below are technical,

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

23. Nov 2018 01:42 by yuriastrak...@gmail.com : > * each country gets its own admin_level=2 relation according to THAT country. > I am against starting to misuse admin_level=2 relations. ___ talk mailing list

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

boundary=administrative can't be "IRRESPECTIVE OF WIDE INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION" by definition. Please check it on OSM wiki : "An administrative boundary. Subdivisions of areas/territories/jurisdictions

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

2018-11-23, pn, 18:57 Andy Townsend rašė: > Where that best matches the situation on the ground about who has > control, yes. Ok. So do I understand OSMF position is this: 1. There are no technical problems with having international boundaries overlapping and representing official position

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

On 23/11/2018 16:36, Tomas Straupis wrote: 2018-11-23, pn, 18:23 Andy Townsend rašė: Yuri, I suspect that literally every statement that the DWG has made throughout this process has said exactly the opposite of what you've just suggested that we said. You're saying DWG position is that it

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

2018-11-23, pn, 18:23 Andy Townsend rašė: > Yuri, I suspect that literally every statement that the DWG has made > throughout this process has said exactly the opposite of what you've > just suggested that we said. You're saying DWG position is that it IS acceptable to have overlapping country

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

On 23/11/2018 15:34, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: I suspect the "default" is what the community took the main issue with. DWG essentially declaring that there must be a single truth for non-overlapping country borders is what seems to have caused all this. Simply saying that every country can

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

This is a boring discussion, and only triggered by what should be out of OSM : National Claims. Borders are almost invisible on the ground either, at least in civilized countries. And if we just decided to leave out all country borders.in a utopic effort to re-unite the world ?

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

Frederik, I suspect the "default" is what the community took the main issue with. DWG essentially declaring that there must be a single truth for non-overlapping country borders is what seems to have caused all this. Simply saying that every country can define their own would have averted this

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

2018-11-23, pn, 11:19 Oleksiy Muzalyev rašė: > The topic of territorial claims is very complicated, long lasting, and > painful. It involves not only such relatively remote and insignificant > cases as Hans Island, Sudan, Croatia, Crimea, Pakistan, etc. cases, but > also the industrial developed

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

The topic of territorial claims is very complicated, long lasting,  and painful. It involves not only such relatively remote and insignificant cases as Hans Island, Sudan, Croatia, Crimea, Pakistan, etc. cases, but also the industrial developed lands. For example, the Reconquista [1] in the

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

On 22/11/2018 18:53, Victor Shcherb wrote: In that case I would actually support idea of deleting all country boundaries to avoid this question completely. There are numerous sets of data within OSM that are disputed and one 'controlling body' or another would prefer was not published at all.

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

Good points, Victor! Thanks for sharing your opinion. You've just demonstrated how DWG could have started the discussion. Current discussion (not only this topic but all the messages on OSM lists.*, OSM forum, OSM diaries, Twitter etc) raises the question about the DWG role in OSM. While expected

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

> I fear that this is only "kicking the can down the road" though because > we'd likely have - just as we have with names - one "default" set of > boundaries where we say "that's the one you get if you don't ask for any > particular one", and the fight would then be on which one that is going

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

Hi, On 23.11.2018 01:42, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > One idea (perhaps this should go into a separete thread): There already is a separate thread over on the tagging list started just a couple of weeks ago. I suggest that would be a good place to continue the discussion. Being able to map different

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

Victor, thank you for a very thorough and accurate analysis. I especially appreciate 4.2 -- the fact that this decision is very bad for the data users -- I would not be able to use this data at all, simply because most of the time one needs to render the map from the perspective of the specific

[OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

Hi All, I followed many topics for the last 3 days about the Ukraine/Crimea and I would like to propose another look to all known issues. *DISCLAIMER:* First of all, I would like to thank everybody for staying calm and considering all views for this *non-trivial* problem. Originally, I'm from