Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
On 08.02.20 12:01, Colin Smale wrote: Absolutely. But we should document our sources! Basic rule of research. And if we choose to promote one alternative above the others, we are skating on thin ice. IMO, the "alternative" OSM promotes is "what's on the ground". Let's nail our colours to the mast. IMO this is our (long standing) standard. In theory, we don't need to provide documentation, because, in theory, other mappers can "go there" and "look" at it first hand themselves. Have we actually asked the people of Crimea first-hand what they think? No=>it's someones opinion. My example of "asking people on the ground" is for city names. `admin_level=2` border (IMO) means (except here) "what country physically controls the area". Is there anyone who actually doesn't think Russia currently _does_ control the area? Anyone in Crimea, in Ukraine, in Russia, who doesn't think that? I don't think so. (whether you think Russia _should_ control it or not). I suspect Ukrainian police don't go into Crimea today, showing a certain level of knowledge of who actually controls the area now ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
On 07.02.20 20:56, Colin Smale wrote: In the case of Crimea, two different authorities have different views of the jurisdiction to which it belongs. That is a fact, that we can safely map. We can represent the border in one place "according to Russia" and in another place "according to Ukraine" without taking sides. for the political borders we can simply provide both views. But that still ignores the "on the ground" fact that you may have a much harder time trying to pass one of these border versions than the other ... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
On 2020-02-08 11:48, Rory McCann wrote:
> It is true that government A might have one opinion, and government B might
> have another, and Provisional Autonomous Republic of C might have another
> opinion.
>
> But there can be another way. We go there, and we see what nearly everyone
> there calls it. We look at the words on the signs. We look at the name of the
> organisations based there ("Transport for London"). We walk down the street
> and ask 100 people what the name of this city is. We listen into
> conversations there, and see if there's a majority name that people use when
> they talk to each other about the city
>
> And the answer to that is "London".
>
> In OSM, we could tag that "the opinion of the UK government is that this city
> is called London", and "the opinion of the French government is that this
> this city is called Londres", and "the commonly used name for this city by
> the vast majority of people who live there is London".
>
> We should map the third option with the `name` tag.
Absolutely. But we should document our sources! Basic rule of research.
And if we choose to promote one alternative above the others, we are
skating on thin ice. Have we actually asked the people of Crimea
first-hand what they think? No=>it's someones opinion. Can we base our
choice on someone else's research? Which research is that? No=>it's
someone's opinion. Unless we can point to it being "in someone else's
opinion", we must take responsibility for our own conclusions. If that's
too hard, better to not have an opinion i.e. don't promote anything as
"more equal than others".___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
It is true that government A might have one opinion, and government B might have another, and Provisional Autonomous Republic of C might have another opinion. But there can be another way. We go there, and we see what nearly everyone there calls it. We look at the words on the signs. We look at the name of the organisations based there (“Transport for London”). We walk down the street and ask 100 people what the name of this city is. We listen into conversations there, and see if there's a majority name that people use when they talk to each other about the city And the answer to that is “London”. In OSM, we could tag that "the opinion of the UK government is that this city is called London", and "the opinion of the French government is that this this city is called Londres", and "the commonly used name for this city by the vast majority of people who live there is London". We should map the third option with the `name` tag. On 07.02.20 20:56, Colin Smale wrote: Many things we think of as "facts" are in fact somewhat subjective. Things have a name or some attribute "according to" some authority. London "is not" London, it is "called" London according to local people, government etc. But the same place is "called" Londres, according to a different authority, namely French-speakers; both points of view are equally valid, but only within their intended context. In the case of Crimea, two different authorities have different views of the jurisdiction to which it belongs. That is a fact, that we can safely map. We can represent the border in one place "according to Russia" and in another place "according to Ukraine" without taking sides. It is then down to the renderer/consumer which source is preferred. If we don't stop taking sides, well, we are taking sides - whatever our arguments to support our choice. We will never "win" that one. I am applying a bit of data management here; every data item should have a provenance, value domain, validity period etc. The "truth" is always only relative to a particular frame of reference. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
Many things we think of as "facts" are in fact somewhat subjective. Things have a name or some attribute "according to" some authority. London "is not" London, it is "called" London according to local people, government etc. But the same place is "called" Londres, according to a different authority, namely French-speakers; both points of view are equally valid, but only within their intended context. In the case of Crimea, two different authorities have different views of the jurisdiction to which it belongs. That is a fact, that we can safely map. We can represent the border in one place "according to Russia" and in another place "according to Ukraine" without taking sides. It is then down to the renderer/consumer which source is preferred. If we don't stop taking sides, well, we are taking sides - whatever our arguments to support our choice. We will never "win" that one. I am applying a bit of data management here; every data item should have a provenance, value domain, validity period etc. The "truth" is always only relative to a particular frame of reference.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
I made such a proposal a while ago; it got majority approval but not the supermajority required. At the time, I said I don't think a supermajority is possible. However, my original proposal would, I believe, lend considerable strength to the OTG rule, especially in hot spots like Crimea. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 8:02 PM Mikel Maron wrote: > There's two different concepts at play, that OSM does not currently tag > well when in conflict. There's national sovereignty, which is a political > concept which in large part depends on international recognition. And > there's de facto control, which could result from military actions. For > most of the world, these two are in sync. In Crimea, they are not, and > there is a dispute. > > There are so many varieties of disputed territories in the world, it's > hard to come up with a system that works for every single situation. And > tagging structures for disputes could certainly get complicated. However, I > believe that the OSM community could come up with something that works well > enough for Crimea, that it would be broadly agreed that the situation is > represented accurately. > > That tagging may not work for every single dispute in the world, but the > tags could evolve as well as they are implemented in practice. > > -Mikel > > > > On Friday, February 7, 2020, 01:38:23 PM EST, Tomas Straupis < > tomasstrau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Note, that I'm opposing OTG rule application to non-physical objects > as that is philosophically impossible as well as too unpracticall. > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ > 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] Crimea situation - on the ground
Thanks Stevea, I really liked your examples. And thank you Mikel - I agree. OSM already has substantial amount of non-physical but relevant information (e.g. many IDs pointing to external registries), and as Stevea points out - even naming for something local could be contradictory (e.g. two fairly large groups of people could refer to the same place/object by different names). I also think OTG should be a general guideline/goal, simply because map could not be complete without some of that information, and the map should be able to reflect difference of opinions to some "reasonable" degree (an intentionally vague term). On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:15 PM stevea wrote: > Without touching the Crimea specifically, I'd like to chime in that > "on-the-ground" (OTG) is a good rule, but in reality it must be approached > more like a goal to be achieved where it can be, as we must acknowledge > that realistically, this rule both cannot be and is not applied everywhere > under all circumstances. That is the simple truth and OSM should not > pretend otherwise. Maybe we need to tighten up our language about how we > define OTG to better acknowledge this, clearly and explicitly. > > A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which frequently do > not exist "on the ground," but our map data would be remiss if it excluded > these. So we do our best to include boundaries even as they are not > on-the-ground, but exist in both de pure and de facto ways in the real > world, so OSM expresses them. Yes, when boundaries are disputed, this is > difficult: there is no way around that and it isn't unique to OSM. I like > Mikel's recent suggestion positing that OSM can better develop tagging that > accommodates a wide array of disputes, as we do have plastic tagging and it > can evolve well. > > Other examples include large bodies of water and mountain ranges. I've > lived on the Pacific coast most of my life and been to dozens of beaches, > but never once on any beach have I seen a sign which reads "Pacific > Ocean." Same with no signs at the edge of or in the middle of "Rocky > Mountains" or "The Alps." (I've been, and I haven't seen). Yet, OSM maps > oceans and mountain ranges. How do we know their names without anything on > the ground? It's a tricky question which usually starts with some > hand-waving (especially for enormous, major-chunk-of-planet-sized entities > like oceans), and progresses to "well, everybody simply KNOWS that's the > Pacific Ocean..." and we are faced with OTG and an inherent contradiction > of what we should do, then we do it anyway. (Name something without having > a solid OTG reality). > > To a lesser (weaker) extent, OTG flexibility might also apply to newly > developed routes (bicycle routes are a good example) as these may not be > signed (or well signed), yet a government (whether local, state or > national) expresses these as real (on a public map — just as with a > boundary) and poorly signs or doesn't sign them at all in the real world. > OSM uses "unsigned_ref" to denote these, but it's a fuzzy semantic that > doesn't have wide agreement or even consensus. I have seen the opinion > that these shouldn't be in OSM at all, which seems a shame for things which > many local users (of a bike route decreed by a government, for example) > agree do "exist," yet there isn't any OTG evidence for this. While one > tenet of OSM is "don't copy from other maps," when the only evidence that > something exists is ONLY from a PUBLIC map (yielding us ODbL permission), > we have to reconcile that with OTG. Today, we don't do that very well. > > So, rather than being fully enthusiastic about the absolute application of > OTG (we simply can't), let's realize that it is a good guideline which > should be followed where it can, yet it must include some flexibility which > allows for exceptions. I haven't seen that said (here, yet, perhaps it is > elsewhere) and I believe it is important to be explicit about it. > > SteveA > California > ___ > 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] Crimea situation - on the ground
Godo point SteveA. If I had it to do over again, when I developed this in 2007 for our first edit war over city names in Northern Cyprus, I would have name this the "On the Ground **Guideline**" rather Rule. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, February 7, 2020, 02:15:11 PM EST, stevea wrote: Without touching the Crimea specifically, I'd like to chime in that "on-the-ground" (OTG) is a good rule, but in reality it must be approached more like a goal to be achieved where it can be, as we must acknowledge that realistically, this rule both cannot be and is not applied everywhere under all circumstances. That is the simple truth and OSM should not pretend otherwise. Maybe we need to tighten up our language about how we define OTG to better acknowledge this, clearly and explicitly. A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which frequently do not exist "on the ground," but our map data would be remiss if it excluded these. So we do our best to include boundaries even as they are not on-the-ground, but exist in both de pure and de facto ways in the real world, so OSM expresses them. Yes, when boundaries are disputed, this is difficult: there is no way around that and it isn't unique to OSM. I like Mikel's recent suggestion positing that OSM can better develop tagging that accommodates a wide array of disputes, as we do have plastic tagging and it can evolve well. Other examples include large bodies of water and mountain ranges. I've lived on the Pacific coast most of my life and been to dozens of beaches, but never once on any beach have I seen a sign which reads "Pacific Ocean." Same with no signs at the edge of or in the middle of "Rocky Mountains" or "The Alps." (I've been, and I haven't seen). Yet, OSM maps oceans and mountain ranges. How do we know their names without anything on the ground? It's a tricky question which usually starts with some hand-waving (especially for enormous, major-chunk-of-planet-sized entities like oceans), and progresses to "well, everybody simply KNOWS that's the Pacific Ocean..." and we are faced with OTG and an inherent contradiction of what we should do, then we do it anyway. (Name something without having a solid OTG reality). To a lesser (weaker) extent, OTG flexibility might also apply to newly developed routes (bicycle routes are a good example) as these may not be signed (or well signed), yet a government (whether local, state or national) expresses these as real (on a public map — just as with a boundary) and poorly signs or doesn't sign them at all in the real world. OSM uses "unsigned_ref" to denote these, but it's a fuzzy semantic that doesn't have wide agreement or even consensus. I have seen the opinion that these shouldn't be in OSM at all, which seems a shame for things which many local users (of a bike route decreed by a government, for example) agree do "exist," yet there isn't any OTG evidence for this. While one tenet of OSM is "don't copy from other maps," when the only evidence that something exists is ONLY from a PUBLIC map (yielding us ODbL permission), we have to reconcile that with OTG. Today, we don't do that very well. So, rather than being fully enthusiastic about the absolute application of OTG (we simply can't), let's realize that it is a good guideline which should be followed where it can, yet it must include some flexibility which allows for exceptions. I haven't seen that said (here, yet, perhaps it is elsewhere) and I believe it is important to be explicit about it. SteveA California ___ 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] Crimea situation - on the ground
Without touching the Crimea specifically, I'd like to chime in that "on-the-ground" (OTG) is a good rule, but in reality it must be approached more like a goal to be achieved where it can be, as we must acknowledge that realistically, this rule both cannot be and is not applied everywhere under all circumstances. That is the simple truth and OSM should not pretend otherwise. Maybe we need to tighten up our language about how we define OTG to better acknowledge this, clearly and explicitly. A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which frequently do not exist "on the ground," but our map data would be remiss if it excluded these. So we do our best to include boundaries even as they are not on-the-ground, but exist in both de pure and de facto ways in the real world, so OSM expresses them. Yes, when boundaries are disputed, this is difficult: there is no way around that and it isn't unique to OSM. I like Mikel's recent suggestion positing that OSM can better develop tagging that accommodates a wide array of disputes, as we do have plastic tagging and it can evolve well. Other examples include large bodies of water and mountain ranges. I've lived on the Pacific coast most of my life and been to dozens of beaches, but never once on any beach have I seen a sign which reads "Pacific Ocean." Same with no signs at the edge of or in the middle of "Rocky Mountains" or "The Alps." (I've been, and I haven't seen). Yet, OSM maps oceans and mountain ranges. How do we know their names without anything on the ground? It's a tricky question which usually starts with some hand-waving (especially for enormous, major-chunk-of-planet-sized entities like oceans), and progresses to "well, everybody simply KNOWS that's the Pacific Ocean..." and we are faced with OTG and an inherent contradiction of what we should do, then we do it anyway. (Name something without having a solid OTG reality). To a lesser (weaker) extent, OTG flexibility might also apply to newly developed routes (bicycle routes are a good example) as these may not be signed (or well signed), yet a government (whether local, state or national) expresses these as real (on a public map — just as with a boundary) and poorly signs or doesn't sign them at all in the real world. OSM uses "unsigned_ref" to denote these, but it's a fuzzy semantic that doesn't have wide agreement or even consensus. I have seen the opinion that these shouldn't be in OSM at all, which seems a shame for things which many local users (of a bike route decreed by a government, for example) agree do "exist," yet there isn't any OTG evidence for this. While one tenet of OSM is "don't copy from other maps," when the only evidence that something exists is ONLY from a PUBLIC map (yielding us ODbL permission), we have to reconcile that with OTG. Today, we don't do that very well. So, rather than being fully enthusiastic about the absolute application of OTG (we simply can't), let's realize that it is a good guideline which should be followed where it can, yet it must include some flexibility which allows for exceptions. I haven't seen that said (here, yet, perhaps it is elsewhere) and I believe it is important to be explicit about it. SteveA California ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
There's two different concepts at play, that OSM does not currently tag well when in conflict. There's national sovereignty, which is a political concept which in large part depends on international recognition. And there's de facto control, which could result from military actions. For most of the world, these two are in sync. In Crimea, they are not, and there is a dispute. There are so many varieties of disputed territories in the world, it's hard to come up with a system that works for every single situation. And tagging structures for disputes could certainly get complicated. However, I believe that the OSM community could come up with something that works well enough for Crimea, that it would be broadly agreed that the situation is represented accurately. That tagging may not work for every single dispute in the world, but the tags could evolve as well as they are implemented in practice. -Mikel On Friday, February 7, 2020, 01:38:23 PM EST, Tomas Straupis wrote: Note, that I'm opposing OTG rule application to non-physical objects as that is philosophically impossible as well as too unpracticall. ___ 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] Crimea situation - on the ground
Note, that I'm opposing OTG rule application to non-physical objects as that is philosophically impossible as well as too unpracticall. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
Hi,
I don't want to discuss this issue in detail but the on-the-ground rule
is an important cornerstone of what we do in OSM. If anyone wants to use
the Crimea situation (and any possible exceptions made from the OTG rule
because of it) to get rid of the OTG rule, or if anyone because of
political reasons wants to argue away the OTG rule ("has never existed"
etc.etc.) then I would fiercely oppose that.
Whatever your feelings are regarding Russia and Crimea (I notice that
Tomas hails from a country sandwiched between Russia and a Russian
exclave where being illegally occupied by Russia is a realistic fear,
whereas Martin happily fans the flames from a safe distance of over
2,000km away from the nearest Russian tank) - don't sacrifice the OTG rule.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
2020-02-07, pn, 17:18 Mateusz Konieczny via talk rašė: >> 1. On the ground rule has a number of different interpretations > Maybe. Is any of this interpretations leading to conclusion that Ukraine is > de facto controlling Crimea? No, why should they? Ground rule (interpretations I know about) have nothing in common with this case (except stating that mapping borders is an exception). >> Therefore on the ground rule has NEVER >> EXISTED > WAT? Are you claiming that on the ground rule is my > hallucination? It certainly existed. Ground rule interpretation you're talking about has never existed. Otherwise why is it not visible in the data? > What kind of risk can be expected by specifying true fact > that invasion succeed and Russia is controlling Crimea? Go through the posts of last attempt and you will get the info. Succeeded is when everybody (or at least almost everybody) recognises the anschluss. > Do you propose to map Tibet as independent country, Well... Yes :-D China communist party does not like OSM anyway. Note, here situation is quite different from Crimea, unfortunately almost all nations do recognise that Tibet is currently controlled by China since the occupation in 1950. > delete Auschwitz concentration camps from the map, > etc because it is an evidence that some evil things happened? Sooo... you're proposing to map Crimea as belonging to Moscow and add a name "Occupied Ukrainian Crimea"? ;-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
Feb 7, 2020, 14:09 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 1. On the ground rule has a number of different interpretations > Maybe. Is any of this interpretations leading to conclusion that Ukraine is de facto controlling Crimea? > interpretation of "we check everything on the ground literally" is an > illusion of confirmation bias > Noone claims that. Noticeable part of mapping is using aerial images imports. > Anybody can look at the database and > you'll see that absolute majority of such data is taken from legal > documents, other maps (including ortophotographic maps), not from > observations "on the ground". > In many cases it is not necessary to apply it - it is used where multiple sources conflict. > Therefore on the ground rule has NEVER > EXISTED > WAT? Are you claiming that on the ground rule is my hallucination? It certainly existed. > , does not exist now and will never exist because it is simply > impractical. Therefore - FALSE BASE. > In many cases it is not necessary to apply it - it is used where multiple sources conflict. > 2. OSMF is a SUPPORTING organisation, it has no authority to make > decisions on what to map and how. Therefore - NO AUTHORITY. > In such case discussing on mailing list is a perfect place to do this. > 3. Standing on the side of Moscow on this issue will AGAIN put > OpenStreetMap in the target of some EU, US and Worldwide > organisations. Therefore - LEGAL/FINANCIAL RISK. > [citation needed] What kind of risk can be expected by specifying true fact that invasion succeed and Russia is controlling Crimea? Do you propose to map Tibet as independent country, delete Auschwitz concentration camps from the map, etc because it is an evidence that some evil things happened? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
2020-02-07, pn, 16:18 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė: > the on the ground rule was set up to resolve difficult situations. So this rule is just for some specific small case(s) where standard (legal) base is not suitable for somebody? This rule (its new interpretation) was invented by a few without any alignment on how OSM actually works. > It’s neither a contradiction, nor is it a false base. It is a false base because if we would say that Crimea decision is based on wide-spread and old OSM principle of X - then in would be understandable. But X is not a wide-spread, it is even almost non existent. So it is pointless, you can simply say "I decided this way just because". > it’s not about standing on the side of someone specific, it’s a general > question of adhering to one’s own policy. There is no such policy as "ground truth" (interpretation used in Crimea case) in real life (in real database or wide-spread practice of how we map). It is a smoke screen and there is no point of "defending" non-existant thing and raise this issue again as I'm totally sure it will raise the same havoc it did last time. And "neutral" is current decision, because it supports both sides - Ukraine and Moscow - equally. -- Tomas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
sent from a phone > Il giorno 7 feb 2020, alle ore 14:13, Tomas Straupis > ha scritto: > > Anybody can look at the database and > you'll see that absolute majority of such data is taken from legal > documents, other maps (including ortophotographic maps), not from > observations "on the ground". Therefore on the ground rule has NEVER > EXISTED, does not exist now and will never exist because it is simply > impractical. Therefore - FALSE BASE. the on the ground rule was set up to resolve difficult situations. While we would certainly prefer to have all borders surveyed on the ground, it isn’t currently the situation. Still, if there is a question about a specific thing, the situation on the ground is used to resolve it. It’s neither a contradiction, nor is it a false base. > > 2. OSMF is a SUPPORTING organisation, it has no authority to make > decisions on what to map and how. Therefore - NO AUTHORITY. I agree with this, to some point. It is their rules. Ultimately the OpenStreetMap-Foundation is legally responsible for what they publish, so there might be situations where they will have to weigh different arguments and make a decision. > > 3. Standing on the side of Moscow on this issue will AGAIN put > OpenStreetMap in the target of some EU, US and Worldwide > organisations. Therefore - LEGAL/FINANCIAL RISK. it’s not about standing on the side of someone specific, it’s a general question of adhering to one’s own policy. I don’t buy the legal/financial risk issue, but if it was real, I believe we would have to take the risk, in favor of the map. Please also note that the DWG statement has a paragraph which asks to map the Ukraine-Crimea border as disputed. Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
Hello Some important points here: 1. On the ground rule has a number of different interpretations, interpretation of "we check everything on the ground literally" is an illusion of confirmation bias, especially when we talk about non physical objects such as borders. Anybody can look at the database and you'll see that absolute majority of such data is taken from legal documents, other maps (including ortophotographic maps), not from observations "on the ground". Therefore on the ground rule has NEVER EXISTED, does not exist now and will never exist because it is simply impractical. Therefore - FALSE BASE. 2. OSMF is a SUPPORTING organisation, it has no authority to make decisions on what to map and how. Therefore - NO AUTHORITY. 3. Standing on the side of Moscow on this issue will AGAIN put OpenStreetMap in the target of some EU, US and Worldwide organisations. Therefore - LEGAL/FINANCIAL RISK. -- Tomas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
I see a linguistic problem … and people. On 07/02/2020 05:27, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: OSM is not mapping world as it should be, it is mapping it as it exists. Russia has successfully invaded Crimea and considers it part of Russia. but there still are Ukrainians living there, I suppose. people who speak a marginally different language with a couple of differences in the alphabet. (according to them, a completely different language.) so one thing is the border, one other thing is toponyms. a much more serious example of this is the Golan Heights. try to find a name in the area which shows there's Syrians living there! which way does OSM manage to show impartiality? or make a serious attempt at it? MF ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
Feb 6, 2020, 14:59 by pella.s...@gmail.com: > Without "empathy" - we can map> "nesting locations of vulnerable species"> > - because of the cold logic of the "> on the ground rule" > I am OK with not mapping some objects (private features, rare birds, places of worship where given religion is persecuted etc) But I see no good reason to pretend that Russian invasion was not successful, PS: Yes, the invasion was worrying, wrong, problematic and Russian government is filled with abhorrent evil people - especially on the top. It is not changing that they were clearly successful in the invasion. I fully support applying on the ground rule here. OSM is not mapping world as it should be, it is mapping it as it exists. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
> but also reaffirms that it supports the on-the-ground-rule
I suggest to extend our manifesto [1] with the word "emphatic"
( adding after the list: Truthful, Legal, Verifiable, Relevant,
+Emphatic )
With adding the "empathy" to the "on the ground rule" -> it is adding
the extra layer of the meaning.
Without "empathy" - we can map* "nesting locations of vulnerable species"*
- because of the cold logic of the "*on the ground rule"*
With "empathy" we can fix the side effects of cold logic, and we can make
an "intelligent" decision [2]
With "empathy" - it is easy to solve the diversity problems.[4]
Without "empathy" - just with cold logic - it is impossible.
With "empathy" - this sentence has a deeper meaning:
*"OpenStreetMap values community cohesion over data perfection." [1] *
and this is important for every organisation/community:
*"Empathy deserves its buzzy status, and leaders are wise to desire it for
their businesses. But to succeed in making it part of their organization’s
DNA, they must pay close attention to how cultures build and change —
organically, collectively, and often from the bottom up." [3]*
And in the "Crimea situation" the empathy add an extra complexity ..
What is the real meaning of the "Our community is based on mutual respect,
tolerance ..." [4] in this case?
[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/How_We_Map
[2] Eugenia Cheng: "The Art of Logic: How to Make Sense in a World that
Doesn't"
https://youtu.be/YHZKX0H6cUE?t=2217
[3] https://hbr.org/2019/05/making-empathy-central-to-your-company-culture
[4] proposed "Diversity Statement" *"Our community is based on mutual
respect, tolerance ..."* ~ empathy
https://gist.github.com/grischard/53e4e9defebe7912f3aab9c0d2d1b55a
Best,
Imre
Martin Koppenhoefer ezt írta (időpont: 2020. febr.
6., Cs, 12:42):
> As most of you will know, the DWG on 14 Nov 2018 had reconsidered its
> original statement on Crimea from 5 June 2014, and decided to acknowledge
> that on the ground, Russia was controlling the territory and that the
> situation seemed fairly stable. On 10 December 2018, the OSMF board decided
> to return to the 2014 resolution. In its reasoning, board refers to the
> community as a whole ("The previous situation with the exception in place
> was obviously much more acceptable to the OSM community as a whole"), but
> also reaffirms that it supports the on-the-ground-rule: "
>
> We recognize that a lot of work has gone into the current Disputed Area
> Policy, and both DWG and LWG have assured us that the "on the ground
> rule" generally works well to avoid and settle conflicts. We, therefore, do
> not want to weaken that policy."
>
> My belief is that the reason for the on-the-ground rule to exist, is
> actually solving problems like the one in Crimea, and that we are weakening
> our position as "neutral", global community, if we make any exceptions to
> the rule. While I fully support the 2014 DWG resolution for the situation
> of 2014 (indeed potentially unclear if it would be stable), I also agree
> that in 2018 DWG couldn't decide differently than how they did.
>
> I therefore ask the current OSMF Board to reconsider the 2018 board
> decision and put the updated DWG statement from Nov 2018 into effect. This
> is not a question whether you believe, Crimea should belong to Ukraine or
> Russia, it is a principal question of creating together a truely impartial
> and indipendent map and adhering to our own standards.
>
> Like the former OSMF board, the DWG and LWG, I do not want to weaken that
> policy.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
>
>
> _
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018-11-14_Crimea
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2014-06-05_Special_Crimea
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2019-February/005972.html
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
