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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
> 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
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
