Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Dec 13, 2018, 1:53 PM by ajt1...@gmail.com:

> On 11/12/2018 13:45, Manfred A. Reiter  wrote:
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> The decision of the DWG was absolutely correct  according to the 
>> rules that OSM imposed on itself. 
>>  
>>  I think the board here is opening Pandora's box. It will  
>> certainly be interesting to see how all the controversial  areas 
>> will be judged from now on. 
>>
>>
>
> Given that there will be effectively a "new board" after Saturday
>
So not only they bizarrely refused to provide any reasoning at all but also 
promised that
a new board will find justification for their actions?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 13. Dec 2018, at 13:53, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> Given that there will be effectively a "new board" after Saturday I think 
> that it's only fair to let them get their feet under the table first, but 
> there clearly will be pressure from the community once they have done that to 
> release the more comprehensive statement that was promised in 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-December/081781.html .


given that the decision was taken by the current board it seems logical that 
the current board explains the reasoning behind it. What would the „new“ board 
know about it (ok, most of the new board will be the old board anyway).


Cheers, Martin 





___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Andy Townsend]

On 11/12/2018 13:45, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:


[...]

The decision of the DWG was absolutely correct according to the rules 
that OSM imposed on itself.


I think the board here is opening Pandora's box. It will certainly be 
interesting to see how all the controversial areas will be judged from 
now on.




Given that there will be effectively a "new board" after Saturday I 
think that it's only fair to let them get their feet under the table 
first, but there clearly will be pressure from the community once they 
have done that to release the more comprehensive statement that was 
promised in 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-December/081781.html .


Without knowing on what basis this board decision to create an exception 
to the OSM norm was reached it's difficult to generalise from it and 
understand how it might apply in other edge cases.


Best Regards,

Andy (a member of the DWG, but sending this in a personal capacity)


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Manfred A. Reiter]

Am Di., 11. Dez. 2018 um 11:52 Uhr schrieb Guillaume Rischard <
openstreet...@stereo.lu>:

> Hi Rory and fellow members,
>
> I am a candidate in the board election, and have underlined in my
> manifesto how important it is that decisions like this are taken
> transparently. The detailed reasoning behind this decision must be
> published without delay.
>

+1

[...]


> However, the on-the-ground rule is one of the very core values that we
> have built OSM and the OSMF on.
>

+1


> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement says that OSM
> favours objective ‘Ground Truth’ over all other sources. The ‘Scope of the
> OSMF’ section says that it does not decide what to map or how to map.


[...]

The decision of the DWG was absolutely correct according to the rules that
OSM imposed on itself.

I think the board here is opening Pandora's box. It will certainly be
interesting to see how all the controversial areas will be judged from now
on.

cheers
-- 
## Manfred Reiter
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Jaak Laineste]

Hi,

There are map services (TomTom I believe) which have a parameter, something 
like "politics" with possible values China, India and Pakistan, and of course 
google does same for end-users. As far as I can think of more or less every 
single country has some details what they feel to be mapped differently from 
some others, probably all the neighbours of the same country connected with 
Crimea have this challenge. Nothing new here, that's reality and implementing 
"international map politics" that would be an obvious minimal feature of any 
international map app. So far only the biggest ones do it, but none of 
OSM-based AFAIK. OSM itself is a database, not app, so we can only enable it 
with tagging, and maybe in the 'preview' web tiles. 

Jaak

> On 11 Dec 2018, at 17:39, Eugene Alvin Villar  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:02 PM Imre Samu  > wrote:
> TLDR:  We need focusing for the customizable vector tiles for the next year!  
>   (  Less community fighting - more working on the real problems!  )
> 
> Vector tiles and customizable styling is not enough. AFAIK, we never use 
> 3rd-party data (except for the public domain Natural Earth data for the lower 
> zoom levels, IIRC) when rendering the default tile layer on the OSM. So we 
> still need to represent the various viewpoints on disputed borders and 
> territories within the OSM database itself if you want that level of 
> flexibility on the default tile layer(s). There are already a couple or so 
> threads on the Tagging mailing list discussing various tagging solutions for 
> representing these viewpoints and disputes.
> 
> ~Eugene
> ___
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Imre Samu]

> Vector tiles and customizable styling is not enough.
> So we still need to represent the various viewpoints on disputed borders
and territories within the OSM database itself

agree,   (  sorry,  I am not good at communication. :))

as I wrote:

Imho: an important part of the solution:
-  openstreetmap.org vector maps.  ( so we can customize the borders,
languages for  the end users, communities )
-  improved admin border tagging
-  more communication,  adapting the rules for the current political
situations.

And I trust in DWG.





Eugene Alvin Villar  ezt írta (időpont: 2018. dec. 11.,
K, 16:41):

> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:02 PM Imre Samu  wrote:
>
>> TLDR:  We need focusing for the customizable vector tiles for the next
>> year!(  Less community fighting - more working on the real problems!  )
>>
>
> Vector tiles and customizable styling is not enough. AFAIK, we never use
> 3rd-party data (except for the public domain Natural Earth data for the
> lower zoom levels, IIRC) when rendering the default tile layer on the OSM.
> So we still need to represent the various viewpoints on disputed borders
> and territories within the OSM database itself if you want that level of
> flexibility on the default tile layer(s). There are already a couple or so
> threads on the Tagging mailing list discussing various tagging solutions
> for representing these viewpoints and disputes.
>
> ~Eugene
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:02 PM Imre Samu  wrote:

> TLDR:  We need focusing for the customizable vector tiles for the next
> year!(  Less community fighting - more working on the real problems!  )
>

Vector tiles and customizable styling is not enough. AFAIK, we never use
3rd-party data (except for the public domain Natural Earth data for the
lower zoom levels, IIRC) when rendering the default tile layer on the OSM.
So we still need to represent the various viewpoints on disputed borders
and territories within the OSM database itself if you want that level of
flexibility on the default tile layer(s). There are already a couple or so
threads on the Tagging mailing list discussing various tagging solutions
for representing these viewpoints and disputes.

~Eugene
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 11.12.2018 o 14:59, Imre Samu pisze:
> Imho:  there are other core values
 
> So we need to find a global optimum - and it is not easy.


I agree. Thanks for checking our foundations. In day to day operations
it's not possible to know every rule in OSM and it's not even needed,
since some common rules of thumb are enough, but it's important to
really check it when discussing rules.


> TLDR:  We need focusing for the customizable vector tiles for the next
> year!    (  Less community fighting - more working on the real
> problems!  )


I hope there will be something for a start in the coming weeks:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/214#issuecomment-432002876


-- 
"Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]



___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Vladimir Agafonkin]

>
> And here you are disqualifying yourself from the discussion because you
> essentially reject the possibility that OSM can function as a cross
> cultural, cross ideology project to document the verifiable geography of
> the world.  If you don't think that is possible and think that OSM when
> mapping the world has to take a political side maybe OSM is not the right
> project for you.  Because that is the most fundamental idea behind our
> project.


I pointed out such a possibility in the same message (which I hoped you'd
read fully before replying), assuming OSM wants to map "verifiable
geography" and not "the world according to Christoph Hormann". As soon as
you extend the physical ground truth principle to non-physical political
entities, doing so *selectively* to form a single view that aligns with
your personal feelings, the issue becomes political. It doesn't have to be.

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:40 PM Vladimir Agafonkin 
wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:52 PM Guillaume Rischard <
> openstreet...@stereo.lu> wrote:
>
>> The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is
>> no other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in
>> Crimea, without any justification, opens Pandora’s box.
>
>
> All of these statements are misleading. If Crimea is an exception, how is
> the ground-truth rule applied in South Osetia and Abkhazia, both of which
> are included in the Georgia boundary which has absolutely no control over
> those territories (de-facto controlled by Russia)? Why is Transnistria
> included in the boundaries of Moldova? Why does the Cyprus boundary include
> a large area fully controlled by Turkey? What police and tax authority is
> there in large areas of Iran and Iraq controlled by ISIS, and why are these
> areas still included in the respective countries?
>
> The only major difference in those cases compared to Crimea is that
> applying the ground-truth rule there would require mapping respective areas
> as independent countries. But — big surprise! — OSM community by convention
> limits the list of countries to those recognized by the UN, because, as it
> turns out, a country is a political entity after all. How ironic is that?
>
> In practice, OSM never fully adhered to the ground truth rule when it
> comes to country boundaries, but at least the policy was vague enough to
> make arbitrary decisions, with either "ground truth" or "widely
> internationally recognized" bit taking precedence depending on how the DWG
> members feel about the world on a particular day. Pretending OSM is out of
> politics when solving an inherently political issue does not help, because
> then you take a political side implicitly (becoming a welcome tool of
> Russian regime propaganda in this case).
>
> There are reasonable and possible alternatives, such as this in-progress
> disputed boundaries proposal
> ,
> but due to the complexity and emotional charge of the issue, fleshing them
> out to a practical consensus will take a considerable time. Until such a
> common ground is found, the most practical thing you can do is to revert to
> a balance point that prevents never-ending edit wars and worked well in
> practice for the last 5 years. It's unfortunate that this issue wasn't
> taken seriously in that period, but hopefully this crisis, however
> damaging, will facilitate coming to a universal solution soon.
>
> --
> Vladimir Agafonkin
> https://agafonkin.com
> +380 (93) 745 44 61
>


-- 
Vladimir Agafonkin
https://agafonkin.com
+380 (93) 745 44 61
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Imre Samu]

>https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement says that OSM
favours objective ‘Ground Truth’ over all other sources.

:)

Imho:  there are other core values
core1. *"We want to make the best map data set of the world"* ( With
Ukraine!  - I don't want an OSMUkraine-Exit forking OSM , like Brexit
example in the today politics )
core3. *"OSM is powered by its Community. Engage positively with the
Community, be a good and respectful neighbour and assume good intent.""*
( I prefer collaborating with Ukraine community not fighting )
core5. *"Ground Truth: OSM favours objective “Ground Truth” over all other
sources""*

So we need to find a global optimum - and it is not easy.

Imho: an important part of the solution:
-  openstreetmap.org vector maps.  ( so we can customize the borders,
languages for  the end users, communities )
-  improved admin border tagging
-  more communication,  adapting the rules for the current political
situations.

I would like if we can create an OpenStreetMap Manifesto ( like
https://agilemanifesto.org/ )
- important point:We prefer community (nationality) collaboration over
the following rules

Disclaimer:
-  I am a native Hungarian,  and a lot of ethnic Hungarians live in the
neighboring countries  - so in Ukraine also (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Ukraine )
   A minority language is a hot issue in this area, but we need to
collaborate for every neighboring osm community.
   in this issue - no rationality only emotions.  So mentioning rational
"ground truth" is not enough.

so in my reading - We have a little time to focus on the root cause of the
problem   ->  * We don't have a customizable vector map yet.*

>I really think it is now time to apply the on-the-ground rule. We should
use the opportunity to reaffirm our core values,
>review with the community’s support where we have taken decisions on
disputed territories, and make sure that we apply the same rules in the
same way everywhere.

imho:  this is also important.
core values: *"OSM wants you to map the things you care about and will
ensure that you have the freedom to do so. This safeguards the
accessibility of our map to diverse users with differing needs."*

We need customizable vector tiles for Ukrainian map users!

Question:  What is the priority of the core values?

TLDR:  We need focusing for the customizable vector tiles for the next
year!(  Less community fighting - more working on the real problems!  )

this is my personal opinion.  ( but my opinion sometimes change )
( Sorry for my draft English, I respect every people on the DWG !   and
this is not so easy issue!  and a lot of unintended consequences,  +
complexity;  IMHO: we need an iterative solution! )

best,
 Imre




Guillaume Rischard  ezt írta (időpont: 2018. dec.
11., K, 11:52):

> Hi Rory and fellow members,
>
> I am a candidate in the board election, and have underlined in my
> manifesto how important it is that decisions like this are taken
> transparently. The detailed reasoning behind this decision must be
> published without delay.
>
> The lobbying from Ukrainians over the last days has been heavy. However,
> the on-the-ground rule is one of the very core values that we have built
> OSM and the OSMF on.
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement says that OSM
> favours objective ‘Ground Truth’ over all other sources. The ‘Scope of the
> OSMF’ section says that it does not decide what to map or how to map.
>
> The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no
> other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea,
> without any justification, opens Pandora’s box. Would the OSMF react
> similarly to an appeal concerning other disputed borders? There should
> never be an arbitrary decision on these issues but only well-defined and
> established policies.
>
> You could claim that we haven’t followed the on-the-ground rule in Crimea
> for the last four years. I know that the Data Working Group, which I am a
> member of, has treated Crimea with kid gloves after the Russian invasion. I
> haven’t been on the DWG that long; this was decided way before my time. We
> act more as firefighters than as gardeners, work more reactively than
> proactively, and always have enough new issues to prevent us from
> reexamining old ones.
>
> I really think it is now time to apply the on-the-ground rule. We should
> use the opportunity to reaffirm our core values, review with the
> community’s support where we have taken decisions on disputed territories,
> and make sure that we apply the same rules in the same way everywhere.
>
> Guillaume Rischard (personally, not on behalf of the Data Working Group)
>
> > On 11 Dec 2018, at 11:18, Rory McCann  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi fellow members,
> >
> > I am curious what candidates to the board think about this decision. I
> > know there was the existing questions, but this is a new topic which
> > came up recently. But if you're a 

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Vladimir Agafonkin]

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:52 PM Guillaume Rischard 
wrote:

> The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no
> other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea,
> without any justification, opens Pandora’s box.


All of these statements are misleading. If Crimea is an exception, how is
the ground-truth rule applied in South Osetia and Abkhazia, both of which
are included in the Georgia boundary which has absolutely no control over
those territories (de-facto controlled by Russia)? Why is Transnistria
included in the boundaries of Moldova? Why does the Cyprus boundary include
a large area fully controlled by Turkey? What police and tax authority is
there in large areas of Iran and Iraq controlled by ISIS, and why are these
areas still included in the respective countries?

The only major difference in those cases compared to Crimea is that
applying the ground-truth rule there would require mapping respective areas
as independent countries. But — big surprise! — OSM community by convention
limits the list of countries to those recognized by the UN, because, as it
turns out, a country is a political entity after all. How ironic is that?

In practice, OSM never fully adhered to the ground truth rule when it comes
to country boundaries, but at least the policy was vague enough to make
arbitrary decisions, with either "ground truth" or "widely internationally
recognized" bit taking precedence depending on how the DWG members feel
about the world on a particular day. Pretending OSM is out of politics when
solving an inherently political issue does not help, because then you take
a political side implicitly (becoming a welcome tool of Russian regime
propaganda in this case).

There are reasonable and possible alternatives, such as this in-progress
disputed boundaries proposal
,
but due to the complexity and emotional charge of the issue, fleshing them
out to a practical consensus will take a considerable time. Until such a
common ground is found, the most practical thing you can do is to revert to
a balance point that prevents never-ending edit wars and worked well in
practice for the last 5 years. It's unfortunate that this issue wasn't
taken seriously in that period, but hopefully this crisis, however
damaging, will facilitate coming to a universal solution soon.

-- 
Vladimir Agafonkin
https://agafonkin.com
+380 (93) 745 44 61
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Milo van der Linden]

I agree with what Guillaume says:

"...how important it is that decisions are taken transparently. The
detailed reasoning behind any decision must be published without delay."

That in my opinion is key. There is no wrong or right in decision making as
long as it can be explained (and reverted when enough good arguments
arise). After all, we are all people.

Op di 11 dec. 2018 om 11:51 schreef Guillaume Rischard <
openstreet...@stereo.lu>:

> Hi Rory and fellow members,
>
> I am a candidate in the board election, and have underlined in my
> manifesto how important it is that decisions like this are taken
> transparently. The detailed reasoning behind this decision must be
> published without delay.
>
> The lobbying from Ukrainians over the last days has been heavy. However,
> the on-the-ground rule is one of the very core values that we have built
> OSM and the OSMF on.
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement says that OSM
> favours objective ‘Ground Truth’ over all other sources. The ‘Scope of the
> OSMF’ section says that it does not decide what to map or how to map.
>
> The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no
> other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea,
> without any justification, opens Pandora’s box. Would the OSMF react
> similarly to an appeal concerning other disputed borders? There should
> never be an arbitrary decision on these issues but only well-defined and
> established policies.
>
> You could claim that we haven’t followed the on-the-ground rule in Crimea
> for the last four years. I know that the Data Working Group, which I am a
> member of, has treated Crimea with kid gloves after the Russian invasion. I
> haven’t been on the DWG that long; this was decided way before my time. We
> act more as firefighters than as gardeners, work more reactively than
> proactively, and always have enough new issues to prevent us from
> reexamining old ones.
>
> I really think it is now time to apply the on-the-ground rule. We should
> use the opportunity to reaffirm our core values, review with the
> community’s support where we have taken decisions on disputed territories,
> and make sure that we apply the same rules in the same way everywhere.
>
> Guillaume Rischard (personally, not on behalf of the Data Working Group)
>
> > On 11 Dec 2018, at 11:18, Rory McCann  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi fellow members,
> >
> > I am curious what candidates to the board think about this decision. I
> > know there was the existing questions, but this is a new topic which
> > came up recently. But if you're a candidate for the board, and you have
> > an opinion on this, I'd like to hear, and I'm sure other members would
> > too. How would you vote if you were on the board now? What
> > do you think? Please don't be afraid to say something publicly (here,
> > the wiki, user diaries, etc).
> >
> > Rory
> >
> > On 10/12/2018 17:55, Martijn van Exel wrote:> Hi all,
> >>
> >> On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to
> review the Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea.
> >>
> >> The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous
> situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to
> further remain in effect.
> >>
> >> The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates
> the difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an
> ongoing basis.
> >>
> >> A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Martijn van Exel
> >> Secretary, OpenStreetMap Foundation
> >>
> >
> > ___
> > osmf-talk mailing list
> > osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>


-- 
[image: http://www.dogodigi.net] 
*Milo van der Linden*
web: dogodigi 
tel: +31-6-16598808
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Guillaume Rischard]

Hi Rory and fellow members,

I am a candidate in the board election, and have underlined in my manifesto how 
important it is that decisions like this are taken transparently. The detailed 
reasoning behind this decision must be published without delay.

The lobbying from Ukrainians over the last days has been heavy. However, the 
on-the-ground rule is one of the very core values that we have built OSM and 
the OSMF on.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement says that OSM favours 
objective ‘Ground Truth’ over all other sources. The ‘Scope of the OSMF’ 
section says that it does not decide what to map or how to map.

The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no 
other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea, 
without any justification, opens Pandora’s box. Would the OSMF react similarly 
to an appeal concerning other disputed borders? There should never be an 
arbitrary decision on these issues but only well-defined and established 
policies.

You could claim that we haven’t followed the on-the-ground rule in Crimea for 
the last four years. I know that the Data Working Group, which I am a member 
of, has treated Crimea with kid gloves after the Russian invasion. I haven’t 
been on the DWG that long; this was decided way before my time. We act more as 
firefighters than as gardeners, work more reactively than proactively, and 
always have enough new issues to prevent us from reexamining old ones.

I really think it is now time to apply the on-the-ground rule. We should use 
the opportunity to reaffirm our core values, review with the community’s 
support where we have taken decisions on disputed territories, and make sure 
that we apply the same rules in the same way everywhere.

Guillaume Rischard (personally, not on behalf of the Data Working Group)

> On 11 Dec 2018, at 11:18, Rory McCann  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi fellow members,
> 
> I am curious what candidates to the board think about this decision. I
> know there was the existing questions, but this is a new topic which
> came up recently. But if you're a candidate for the board, and you have
> an opinion on this, I'd like to hear, and I'm sure other members would
> too. How would you vote if you were on the board now? What
> do you think? Please don't be afraid to say something publicly (here,
> the wiki, user diaries, etc).
> 
> Rory
> 
> On 10/12/2018 17:55, Martijn van Exel wrote:> Hi all,
>> 
>> On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review the 
>> Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea.
>> 
>> The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous 
>> situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to 
>> further remain in effect.
>> 
>> The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates the 
>> difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an 
>> ongoing basis.
>> 
>> A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Martijn van Exel
>> Secretary, OpenStreetMap Foundation
>> 
> 
> ___
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-t...@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk