Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Martijn van Exel]

Resending from my personal email address, see below. 

> On Nov 26, 2018, at 2:56 PM, Martijn van Exel  
> wrote:
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> This is to inform you that the OSMF board did receive a formal request last 
> week to appeal the DWG decision referred to in this thread. 
> We are gathering information and are deliberating. We will let the community 
> know once we have an update.
> 
> Respectfully,
> Martijn van Exel
> Secretary, OSM Foundation 
> 
>> On Nov 19, 2018, at 11:15 PM, Tomas Straupis  wrote:
>> 
>> Hello
>> 
>> I think this needs more attention and should not be silently buried
>> in archives.
>> 
>> OSMF/DWG has sided with Moscow to recognise illegal annexation of
>> Ukraine's territory - Crimea.
>> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018-11-14_Crimea
>> 
>> Note that there was a vote in UN on this:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262
>> only few countries on the level of North Korea, Zimbabwe, Russia,
>> Venezuela have recognised this international crime. Does OSMF/DWG want
>> to be in this group? Does OpenStreetMap has to be in this group?
>> 
>> PRACTICAL1: this will make it impossible to create a correct
>> political map using OSM data.
>> 
>> PRACTICAL2: It is also EXTREMELY damaging to OpenStreetMap
>> reputation. Now all opponents of OSM will be able to point fingers at
>> this decision - "OSM recognises Crimeas annexation". And it now makes
>> us all participate in Russian (ruled) project.
>> 
>> PRACTICAL3: While there are some talks about using OSM instead or
>> alongside of commercial GIS solutions in the context of EU INSPIRE
>> directive, such intentions will be seriously damaged by OSMF/DWG
>> actions, because Europe has a very clear position of not recognising
>> Crimeas annexation.
>> 
>> It would also be nice to know how members of DWG voted, to have more
>> information on their attitudes towards Russian aggression. This would
>> be important for those having a vote. But I do not know how to do that
>> correctly, so that not to cause personal damage and avoid bullying.
>> 
>> I personally do not know how/if I can proceed with pushing
>> OpenStreetMap to government or educational use...
>> 
>> -- 
>> Tomas
>> 
>> ___
>> 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 silently sides with Russia?

[Tomas Straupis]

Congratulations to Ukraine celebrating the Day of Dignity.
You HAVE a strong backbone!

This thread is depleated.
Bye
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

21. Nov 2018 15:17 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com :


> But I see no objective reasons why this should be the case in the
> data.




https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule 



 

>  Data could represent all sides.




No. This way we will end with micronation nonsenses like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation 
 or worse





For more specific case see


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelmugel 



 

>  I've given examples how to do
> so, but it was proven again that there was NO ATTEMPT to have a
> resolution which would be acceptable to MORE people.




Hint 1: titles like "OSMF silently sides with Russia" are poor way to convince

others that you have a good idea.




Hint 2: before starting controversial disussion please check previous 
discussions

on a given topic

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Tomas Straupis]

2018-11-21, tr, 16:04 Mateusz Konieczny rašė:
> Taken together it means that Crimea (territory occupied by Russia) should be 
> marked
> as de facto within Russia.

  On OSM-Carto map - it could be so.

  But I see no objective reasons why this should be the case in the
data. Data could represent all sides. I've given examples how to do
so, but it was proven again that there was NO ATTEMPT to have a
resolution which would be acceptable to MORE people. The simplest
solution was chosen because of false counterarguments: Finland's non
existing border claims, historical and hypothetical but currently non
existing disputes etc.

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

20. Nov 2018 07:15 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com :


> Hello
>
>   I think this needs more attention and should not be silently buried
> in archives.
>
>   OSMF/DWG has sided with Moscow to recognise illegal annexation of
> Ukraine's territory - Crimea.
>   > 
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018-11-14_Crimea
>  
> 
>




To start from facts:




1) Russia started war with Ukraine and invaded its territory, for example Crimea




2) Russia successfully occupied Crimea and it is unlikely to change in near 
future 





3) OSM maps world as it exists, not as it should exist (on the ground rule).




--




Taken together it means that Crimea (territory occupied by Russia) should be 
marked 





as de facto within Russia.




It does not mean that Russian invasion is considered as legal/welcome/desirable 
by 





DWG or OSM community.





For reference: I really, really dislike the Russian government for obvious 
reasons, 





it is not changing that their invasion of Ukraine clearly succeeded at least in 
case of Crimea.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Wednesday 21 November 2018, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> [...]
>
> To conclude, if we remove Kafia Kingi from the South Sudan relation,
> there will be no notable violations to the 2013 agreement on our map
> — though only by means of having one country overlap another.

I am inclined to concur.

For completeness: There are also cases where this kind of situation is 
solved with a gap instead of an overlap - like Hans Island:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2617574

(although an overlap might be a more accurate representation of the de 
facto control in this specific case)

And there are of course also cases where the overlap represents an 
undisputed situation:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/3659532


-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Ilya Zverev]

Hi everyone,

Adding some constructive data to the discussion, I’ve run a query to find 
disputed territories that are mapped in violation to the 2013 agreement — like 
Crimea was before this week.

There are only 20 overlaps of admin_level=2 polygons (has been in Spring 2018, 
I haven’t updated the database lately). Of these, only three are notable:

* Ukraine vs Russia (44800 km², resolved)
* Argentina vs Chile (1507 km², ice shelf with no inhabitants, status unknown)
* Sudan vs South Sudan (23150 km²)

The latter may considered a violation. There are few disputed territories:

* Kafia Kingi is controlled by Sudan, but mapped as part of both administrative 
boundaries.
* Abyei is a special area that can be considered a part of both countries. Its 
inhabitants have both citizenships.
* Town of Heglig is controlled by Sudan and mapped as Sudan-exclusive.
* I see no overlaps on other disputed territories.

To conclude, if we remove Kafia Kingi from the South Sudan relation, there will 
be no notable violations to the 2013 agreement on our map — though only by 
means of having one country overlap another.

See the list for yourself: https://pastebin.com/MAH6YX5s

We may have an issue with some partially recognized countries, like Abkhazia, 
which are still mapped as parts of other countries, despite not being 
controlled by them.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 20. Nov 2018, at 19:56, Christoph Hormann  wrote:
> 
>  It is also completely 
> non-verifiable (anyone can claim something is theirs).


it is completely verifiable: you can read, hear and see that they claim it.
As long as we agree that ‚anyone‘ is not sufficient (as in _one_ individual) 
for entering it in OSM, we could probably come up with a definition of what is 
a significant claim that merits integrating it.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Tomas Straupis]

Are we looking for a solution of existing problem?
Or thinking of hypothetical future problems and how they could
potentially be harder (but not impossible) to solve using proposed
solution? With a purpose of declaring it "too difficult" so "lets do
nothing"?

Most of us are happy to live in countries with no disputed borders,
but as was stated in this thread a lot of people are not that lucky.
And it means all those people do not get the solution THEY need from
OSM, because WE want to make it simpler for US. What about declared
diversity, equality and thinking beyond "middle-to-high salary first
world country white man"?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 20 November 2018, Andy Townsend wrote:
> >Do you know a country which has a fluctuating representation of
> > its borders say in schoolbooks?
>
> In my lifetime, lots - [...]

Back in the days when i was at school typical German school maps knew at 
least four different types of national boundaries.  You can find the 
map key for them from the most common West German school atlas here:

http://www.imagico.de/files/diercke_cold_war_boundaries.jpg

Needless to say this mess had luckily vanished by the time i graduated.

And no - it would not make sense to represent this in OSM if that was 
still the situation today.  OpenStreetMap is not Wikipedia.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Tomas Straupis]

>>Do you know a country which has a fluctuating representation of its
>> borders say in schoolbooks?
>
> In my lifetime, lots - countries (and I don't mean where boundaries
> changed, but the external recogition of them did).  For example, the US
> only recognised the People's Republic of China in the 1970s.  I suspect
> <...>

  Representation of ITS borders. So China's understanding of China's
borders, Taiwan's understanding of Taiwan's borders, Ukraine's
understanding of Ukraine's borders etc. And at one time - TODAY.

>> Doesn't every country have ONE OFFICIAL
>> claimed border?
>
> No, for a few reasons.  One is that countries might be in the process of
> accepting something like UNCLOS arbitration (so there isn't a settled
> border to claim yet), or they may have multiple claims some more rooted
> in reality than others. For example how much of Karelia east of the
> current border would you consider part of Finland, if any?

  We could be understanding "territorial claims" differently. Haven't
heard that Finland would claim that their borders are different from
what they have today. Yes, part of territory was occupied and annexed
after Russia invaded Finland in the beginning of the WWII but never
heard that OFFICIAL position would be "this is our territory down
there over the border".
  Wikipedia states: "Both Russia and Finland have repeatedly stated
that no open territorial dispute exists between the two countries."

> Which often aren't suitably licensed for use in OSM, or are quite vague
> ("that area over there really belongs to us").

  But how is this different from borders as entered today, that is
without overlap?

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Andy Townsend]

On 20/11/2018 19:43, Tomas Straupis wrote:


   Do you know a country which has a fluctuating representation of its
borders say in schoolbooks?


In my lifetime, lots - countries (and I don't mean where boundaries 
changed, but the external recogition of them did).  For example, the US 
only recognised the People's Republic of China in the 1970s.  I suspect 
that the 20th-century Chinese history gets a very different treatment in 
Beijing and Taipei, but I'm sure that no-one in Taiwan teaches kids that 
their government still controls mainland China.  Rather more recently, 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_constitutional_referendums,_1998#Nineteenth_amendment 
changed the area claimed by the Republic of Ireland as part of that country.




Doesn't every country have ONE OFFICIAL
claimed border?



No, for a few reasons.  One is that countries might be in the process of 
accepting something like UNCLOS arbitration (so there isn't a settled 
border to claim yet), or they may have multiple claims some more rooted 
in reality than others. For example how much of Karelia east of the 
current border would you consider part of Finland, if any?




   All borders are verifiable mostly only by checking official documents.


Which often aren't suitably licensed for use in OSM, or are quite vague 
("that area over there really belongs to us").


Best Regards,

Andy



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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[John Whelan]

All borders are verifiable mostly only by checking official documents.



I think you are missing something very basic here.

If two official documents are in disagreement then which one is correct?  Two 
countries claiming the same territory for example.


  Those apps, which cannot tolerate overlap, would calculate a diff, 
calculating the difference is not something very new and challenging.

Making any change can be difficult that is why professional IT staff have 
change management systems.  First you have to contact every person who has 
created an app and they have to see if the change impacts them.  Both steps 
take an enormous amount of effort.  One major practical problem being there is 
no central repository or register of all the apps that consume OpenStreetMap 
data.  Another problem is apps are used by people in different ways sometimes 
in ways that programmer didn't imagine.  The programmer may think its fine but 
an end user maybe impacted.  Training material may be impacted, this is how you 
do something.  A small change may have a very big impact.

However OpenStreetMap can be forked so you may wish to create your own version 
and set the rules the way you'd like to see them.  FOSM.org is an example of 
this.

Cheerio John



Tomas Straupis wrote on 2018-11-20 2:43 PM:

All borders are verifiable mostly only by checking official documents.


--
Sent from Postbox 

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Tomas Straupis]

> From a practical point of view different applications such as OSMand take a 
> snapshot of the database at a point in time.
> How would your proposal work with these derivatives and there are quite a few 
> including the odd one that gets updated once or year or so.

  Sorry, I did not understand where is the problem? Use cases, where
data is updated now and then are less of a problem as there is less
restrictions on time - they can use overlapping borders (for most
cases this would be ok), or do border calculation as required for THAT
SPECIFIC APP (now it is only possible to get a restricted ONE result
which most of the time will not be as required).

> Are you suggesting that all applications that use OpenStreetMap data should 
> be modified to fall in line with your proposal?

  Those apps, which cannot tolerate overlap, would calculate a diff,
calculating the difference is not something very new and challenging.
"holes" in polygons are somehow calculated? But this would allow to
use OSM data not only by citizens of countries which more or less do
not care about "those stupid border disputes".

> Yes, sure, by allowing every mapper to map his or her specific
> subjective desire how the reality should look like we could eliminate
> all disputes.

  Do you know a country which has a fluctuating representation of its
borders say in schoolbooks? Doesn't every country have ONE OFFICIAL
claimed border?
  All borders are verifiable mostly only by checking official documents.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 20 November 2018, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>
>   But it would eliminate all border DISPUTES and ELIMINATE all this
> political crap out of OSM discussions.

Yes, sure, by allowing every mapper to map his or her specific 
subjective desire how the reality should look like we could eliminate 
all disputes.

We would also eliminate any meaning of OSM data as a representation of a 
verifiably observable geographic reality.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[john whelan]

>From a practical point of view different applications such as OSMand take a
snapshot of the database at a point in time.

How would your proposal work with these derivatives and there are quite a
few including the odd one that gets updated once or year or so.

Are you suggesting that all applications that use OpenStreetMap data should
be modified to fall in line with your proposal?

Thanks John

Thanks John

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, 2:12 pm Tomas Straupis  2018-11-20, an, 20:58 Christoph Hormann rašė:
> > This is not a workable approach as an universal rule.  The volume of
> > boundary relation overlap world wide would be enormeous.  You would
> > have a significant number of boundaries that have no practical meaning
> > today.  Some countries have pretty excessive claims.  Formally Taiwan
> > (the ROC) claims all of the PRC for example.  It is also completely
> > non-verifiable (anyone can claim something is theirs).
>
>   Correct me if I'm wrong, but border overlap is only important for
> geocoding purposes? It is possible to calculate border geometry (for
> the specific requirements of specific use case - so very flexible) not
> on every db update but less often (each day, each week, each month, on
> request, whatever). (Something like this WILL be or is already
> happening in databases doing real cartographic generalisation tasks).
>
>   It would this way be reduced to simple TECHNICAL problem with known
> solutions.
>
>   But it would eliminate all border DISPUTES and ELIMINATE all this
> political crap out of OSM discussions.
>
> ___
> 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 silently sides with Russia?

[Tomas Straupis]

2018-11-20, an, 20:58 Christoph Hormann rašė:
> This is not a workable approach as an universal rule.  The volume of
> boundary relation overlap world wide would be enormeous.  You would
> have a significant number of boundaries that have no practical meaning
> today.  Some countries have pretty excessive claims.  Formally Taiwan
> (the ROC) claims all of the PRC for example.  It is also completely
> non-verifiable (anyone can claim something is theirs).

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but border overlap is only important for
geocoding purposes? It is possible to calculate border geometry (for
the specific requirements of specific use case - so very flexible) not
on every db update but less often (each day, each week, each month, on
request, whatever). (Something like this WILL be or is already
happening in databases doing real cartographic generalisation tasks).

  It would this way be reduced to simple TECHNICAL problem with known solutions.

  But it would eliminate all border DISPUTES and ELIMINATE all this
political crap out of OSM discussions.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 20 November 2018, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> > How should we decide which way to map disputed borders?!
>
>   As it was mapped a week ago: BOTH ways (included in BOTH country
> polygons).

This is not a workable approach as an universal rule.  The volume of 
boundary relation overlap world wide would be enormeous.  You would 
have a significant number of boundaries that have no practical meaning 
today.  Some countries have pretty excessive claims.  Formally Taiwan 
(the ROC) claims all of the PRC for example.  It is also completely 
non-verifiable (anyone can claim something is theirs).

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Tomas Straupis]

2018-11-20, an, 19:59 Rory McCann rašė:
> How should we decide which way to map disputed borders?!

  As it was mapped a week ago: BOTH ways (included in BOTH country polygons).

  If required - disputed territory (polygon geometry) can be mapped as
"disputed=yes" with a tag "ground_control=ICHTAMNET|RU|UA", you could
then additionally make a map of World disputed territories. Or you
could use this to subtract from claimed territory to get "controlled"
polygon. So:
  st_difference(Boundary UA, Disputed where ground_control != UA)
  gives you active territory for geocoding and stuff.

  Disputed borders (line geometry) could be mapped with additional
tag: claimed_by=RU|UA so that Russians could ignore borders with
claimed_by=UA, rest of the world could ignore borders with
claimed_by=RU. OSM Could display both but differently.

  Voila... This way DATA represents ALL parties. No reason for the conflict.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Rory McCann]

OSM currently maps borders based on "physical control", which can have
outcomes like this. I can see why it would be.. undesirable to some. If
you think OSM should use a different rule, then please suggest another
rule. We can talk about it and see what that rule would be like. It's a
little more constructive.

How should we decide which way to map disputed borders?!


On 20.11.18 07:15, Tomas Straupis wrote:

Hello

   I think this needs more attention and should not be silently buried
in archives.

   OSMF/DWG has sided with Moscow to recognise illegal annexation of
Ukraine's territory - Crimea.
   
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018-11-14_Crimea

   Note that there was a vote in UN on this:
   
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262
   only few countries on the level of North Korea, Zimbabwe, Russia,
Venezuela have recognised this international crime. Does OSMF/DWG want
to be in this group? Does OpenStreetMap has to be in this group?

   PRACTICAL1: this will make it impossible to create a correct
political map using OSM data.

   PRACTICAL2: It is also EXTREMELY damaging to OpenStreetMap
reputation. Now all opponents of OSM will be able to point fingers at
this decision - "OSM recognises Crimeas annexation". And it now makes
us all participate in Russian (ruled) project.

   PRACTICAL3: While there are some talks about using OSM instead or
alongside of commercial GIS solutions in the context of EU INSPIRE
directive, such intentions will be seriously damaged by OSMF/DWG
actions, because Europe has a very clear position of not recognising
Crimeas annexation.

   It would also be nice to know how members of DWG voted, to have more
information on their attitudes towards Russian aggression. This would
be important for those having a vote. But I do not know how to do that
correctly, so that not to cause personal damage and avoid bullying.

   I personally do not know how/if I can proceed with pushing
OpenStreetMap to government or educational use...



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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[joost schouppe]

 Tomas,

If you want OSM to reconsider the disputed boundaries problem, you should
analyse a selection of problems from around the world and come up with a
policy that can address the issues there. As a charicature, you could say
that we were faced with the choice of making a map that's illegal in
Pakistan, illegal in India, or illegal in both. The last seemed preferable.
In the case of Crimea, most of the world explicitly agrees with one of the
parties in the conflict, but this is not always the case. The current
policy also best reflects our general philosphy of mapping things the way
we see them in reality.

The reactions here are not about Russia. They are about how you can't take
a single issue and build a policy around that. We need a general solution.

On the tagging mailing list there has been discussion about a middle
solution where we would explicitly map disputed territories. So "our"
boundary could remain according to current definitions, but one could also
map the disputed territory as a separate thing. That way, you could at
least make a map with "this is de facto country X but some countries do not
agree about that", or go the Google Maps way of showing borders according
to the reality which people prefer to see.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Andy Townsend]

On 20/11/2018 13:09, Tomas Straupis wrote:


   Can you give an example where things in OpenStreetMap are mapped in
a different way than overwhelming majority of world thinks?


If "the UN" counts for "the overwhelming majority of the world", there 
are quite a few examples.
The UN recognises territories the don't currently exist on the ground in 
their UN-regognised form (e.g. Western Sahara) and it has places such as 
Gibraltar on its "non-self-governing" list that have had referenda about 
their status (e.g. Gibraltar).


Neither is necessarily "wrong" - they're just different criteria. The UN 
has resolutions (which may confusingly conflict with each other 
depending on the politics of the time), OSM has 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf 
.




   Note: I'm not asking to tag Crimea as just Ukraine (which would be
my personal opinion). I'm asking to have an open discussion of
disputed territory rules


An open discussion of how we recognise territories in OSM and how to 
handled places where we know there are disputes makes sense; I'd already 
suggested exactly that in the "Add some tag to identify disputed 
borders" thread.


To be clear though - it would be a big change for OSM to stop trying to 
make an "accurate" map (in terms of "who controls what") and instead to 
try and create some sort of "politically correct" one. To do that you'd 
really want to round up some OSMF members to lobby the OSMF board to 
change the policy, as it's really not something that the DWG makes up as 
it goes along.


Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Tomas Straupis]

2018-11-20, an, 14:33 john whelan rašė:
> I think you have expressed your opinion but unfortunately whilst difficult
> for you to accept traditionally OSM maps a certain way and has done
> for sometime even though many governments and others would wish
> we did something else.

  Can you give an example where things in OpenStreetMap are mapped in
a different way than overwhelming majority of world thinks?

  Note: I'm not asking to tag Crimea as just Ukraine (which would be
my personal opinion). I'm asking to have an open discussion of
disputed territory rules and hopefully revert to the previous "middle
ground" which was acceptable to more/most parties - thus being less
partitioning.

  There was no such discussion yet. In November there was something
like that starting, but then Frederik wrote this:
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-October/081570.html
  Well, English is not my native tongue, but I do not see any
possibility to discuss in these claims:
  "the Crimea issue is currently being discussed in DWG."
  "This policy is not likely to change any time soon."
  I read it as: we are discussing it internally but are not going to
change anything.
  No surprise discussion has stopped shortly after that. I personally
was expecting DWG to come up with some generalisation and a number of
proposals which could be discussed. But that did not happen. Decision
has been taken and not announced.

P.S. I encourage people responding to me personally to reply to the
mailing list, so that It would be visible this is not just my personal
opinion.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[john whelan]

I think you have expressed your opinion but unfortunately whilst difficult
for you to accept traditionally OSM maps a certain way and has done for
sometime even though many governments and others would wish we did
something else.

The world isn't perfect, but from a pragmatic point of view I think
OpenStreetMap tagging the way it does works and does draw attention to what
is happening on the ground.

Cheerio John

On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, 6:11 am Tomas Straupis  2018-11-20, an, 12:42 Elena ``of Valhalla'' rašė:
> > looking at a map where Crimea is part of Ukraine may lead people to plan
> > a trip to it, only to be stopped and possibly questioned.
>
>   But going to Crimea without Ukrainian visa (and not via Ukraine
> controlled territory) would have legal consequences.
>
> > Most importantly, however, having Crimea as part of Ukraine on a map
> > that shows what's on the ground would lead people to think that the
> > illegal invasion has been resolved and everything is back to normal.
> > This, if I understand correctly, would be exactly the opposite of what
> > you want.
>
>   Showing Crimea as part of Russia would also lead people to think
> that the illegal invasion is over, everything was "legalised" and
> issue settled, which is exactly the opposite of the reality.
>
>   I want as much peace as possible. The previous solution to include
> Crimea in both while not ideal had a ~balance between the two sides.
> And now, for unknown reasons, this was changed to give all candies to
> one side (not the one supported by absolute majority of the world)
> introducing unnecessary negative effects. The matter of Crimea was
> more or less calm in OSM before this decision.
>
> --
> Tomas
>
> ___
> 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 silently sides with Russia?

[Tomas Straupis]

2018-11-20, an, 12:42 Elena ``of Valhalla'' rašė:
> looking at a map where Crimea is part of Ukraine may lead people to plan
> a trip to it, only to be stopped and possibly questioned.

  But going to Crimea without Ukrainian visa (and not via Ukraine
controlled territory) would have legal consequences.

> Most importantly, however, having Crimea as part of Ukraine on a map
> that shows what's on the ground would lead people to think that the
> illegal invasion has been resolved and everything is back to normal.
> This, if I understand correctly, would be exactly the opposite of what
> you want.

  Showing Crimea as part of Russia would also lead people to think
that the illegal invasion is over, everything was "legalised" and
issue settled, which is exactly the opposite of the reality.

  I want as much peace as possible. The previous solution to include
Crimea in both while not ideal had a ~balance between the two sides.
And now, for unknown reasons, this was changed to give all candies to
one side (not the one supported by absolute majority of the world)
introducing unnecessary negative effects. The matter of Crimea was
more or less calm in OSM before this decision.

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Elena ``of Valhalla'']

On 2018-11-20 at 11:22:46 +0200, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>   While I have already stated a number of negative effects (which have
> so far been ignored), what positive effects does excluding Crimea from
> Ukraine gives? The only way you can get to occupied territory of
> Crimea from government controlled part of Ukraine is through a narrow
> straight which is heavily guarded. I cannot imagine the situation
> where anybody would "wonder" into occupied territory without knowing
> it.

looking at a map where Crimea is part of Ukraine may lead people to plan
a trip to it, only to be stopped and possibly questioned.

Most importantly, however, having Crimea as part of Ukraine on a map
that shows what's on the ground would lead people to think that the
illegal invasion has been resolved and everything is back to normal.
This, if I understand correctly, would be exactly the opposite of what
you want.

-- 
Elena ``of Valhalla''

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Tomas Straupis]

> If you ask students to contribute to the map and at the same time say
> "btw they are in favour of evil Russian aggression" then of course
> students (at least in Lithuania) will give it the thumbs-down. But if
> you patiently explain the "on-the-ground rule" and that using this rule
> has many positive effects but sometimes also means you have to do
> something you don't like - then I guess people could be made to understand.

  While I have already stated a number of negative effects (which have
so far been ignored), what positive effects does excluding Crimea from
Ukraine gives? The only way you can get to occupied territory of
Crimea from government controlled part of Ukraine is through a narrow
straight which is heavily guarded. I cannot imagine the situation
where anybody would "wonder" into occupied territory without knowing
it.

  I cannot understand WHY was this reconsideration made in the first
place. It was much more peaceful before this decision.

P.S. And I really do not think sarcasm in "evil Russian aggression" is funny.

-- 
Tomas

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

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 20.11.2018 09:13, Tomas Straupis wrote:
> How can I ask students to contribute to the map, which makes such a
> damaging statement and has data which cannot be used to produce maps?

*You* are making the statement, and publicly misinterpreting OSM's
motivations. In doing so, it is *you* who damages the reputation of the
project. Think about it!

If you ask students to contribute to the map and at the same time say
"btw they are in favour of evil Russian aggression" then of course
students (at least in Lithuania) will give it the thumbs-down. But if
you patiently explain the "on-the-ground rule" and that using this rule
has many positive effects but sometimes also means you have to do
something you don't like - then I guess people could be made to understand.

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] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Tomas Straupis]

Youre saying something written in pdf is more important than huge practical
and reputational damage done?

Pdf cannot be wrong and it does not matter that OpenStreetMap loses a lot
of opportunities and probable contributors?

What will ordinary people understand from this decision? Will they read
some hidden pdf?

How can I ask students to contribute to the map, which makes such a
damaging statement and has data which cannot be used to produce maps?
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 20.11.2018 07:15, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>   It would also be nice to know how members of DWG voted, to have more
> information on their attitudes towards Russian aggression. 

The attitudes towards Russian aggression do not matter. DWG is not a
body that rules about justice in the world, DWG implements existing
policies.

The policy that Simon has linked to has been in force since September
2013:
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf


Nobody can dispute that Russia has on-the-ground control over Crimea.

Immediately After the invasion of Crimea, there was some edit warring in
OSM going on, with some people over-eager to map the territory as being
part of Russia and others reverting it. That's why DWG issued a
resolution at the time calling for people to hold still until the dust
has settled.

The dust has now settled over Crimea, and whether you like it or not,
Russia controls the territory. After being asked about this multiple
times - last discussion was here on this very list a month ago:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-October/081553.html

- there was really not any doubt that a correct implementation of the
"Disputed Territories" policy means that Crimea needs to be mapped as
part of Russia.

I would like to point out that the recent DWG resolution contains the
following two passages:

> The Data Working Group takes no stance on if Russia's control is legal or 
> not, as that is not within our scope. 

and

> The boundaries of Crimea shall be indicated as disputed

I don't think that any of this can be construed as "siding with Russia",
and it wasn't "silently" either.

The reason why the LWG recommended the "disputed territories" policy and
why board accepted it in 2013 is that we want OSM to show facts not
fiction. If you pass Russian border patrols when entering a territory
and Russia decides whether you can enter or not, then it is effectively
Russian territory, and it would not be useful for anyone to claim
otherwise.

OSM is not a political map and time and time again we've rejected
politically motivated complaints - about how we should depict Cyprus
differently, about how legally the official language in country X was Y,
about the status of Taiwan, or the West Bank, or islands in the sea
south of China, the boundary of India which the Indian government thinks
contains a lot more ground than they effectively control: What counts
for OSM is what's on the ground, and not what the UN or the EU or the
government of the day would like to see.

Nobody wants war, nationalists, big nations bullying smaller ones, or
territories being occupied by force. But OSM has decided to try, as good
as we can, map the world as it really is.

This should not be blown out of proportion. If you construe this as "OSM
sides with Russia" then it is you who makes a false accusation.

>   PRACTICAL1: this will make it impossible to create a correct
> political map using OSM data.

It is already impossible to create a correct political map in many
countries, e.g. India. It cannot be our aim to placate governments the
world over, especially when their views are conflicting as is usual in
areas of dispute!

>   PRACTICAL2: It is also EXTREMELY damaging to OpenStreetMap
> reputation. Now all opponents of OSM will be able to point fingers at
> this decision - "OSM recognises Crimeas annexation". And it now makes
> us all participate in Russian (ruled) project.

Only if people like you misinterpret what we do as "recognising" the
annexation by ignoring the sentence that I quoted above ("takes no
stance on if Russia's control is legal or not"). Help us by explaining
that we map reality not politics, instead of demanding that we switch to
mapping politics.

>   PRACTICAL3: While there are some talks about using OSM instead or
> alongside of commercial GIS solutions in the context of EU INSPIRE
> directive, such intentions will be seriously damaged by OSMF/DWG
> actions, because Europe has a very clear position of not recognising
> Crimeas annexation.

I don't see why we should change what and how we map just to be more
palatable to EU uses. I think we're already deviating from official EU
viewpoints e.g. in our naming of (the country of) Macedonia or certain
aspects of Cyprus mapping.

If someone is unhappy with OSM boundaries (and I repeat that they are
marked as "disputed") then they can add their own boundaries to the data
set, like e.g. openstreetmap.in is doing.

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] OSMF silently sides with Russia?

[Simon Poole]

I've not been involved in this discussion at all, so it wasn't my
decision. But as we've repeated time and time again on many occasions,
the default borders in OSM are those of de facto control and recording
the fact of which country has control has nothing to do if we think that
is legit, appropriate or anything similar, it is simply recording the fact.

More on the policy can be found here
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf

If the Ukraine regains control of the Crimea, or there was some other
solution, we would duly record that.  In any case none of this stops you
from producing maps with other borders, however imaginary they might be.

Simon

Am 20.11.2018 um 07:15 schrieb Tomas Straupis:
> Hello
>
>   I think this needs more attention and should not be silently buried
> in archives.
>
>   OSMF/DWG has sided with Moscow to recognise illegal annexation of
> Ukraine's territory - Crimea.
>   
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018-11-14_Crimea
>
>   Note that there was a vote in UN on this:
>   
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262
>   only few countries on the level of North Korea, Zimbabwe, Russia,
> Venezuela have recognised this international crime. Does OSMF/DWG want
> to be in this group? Does OpenStreetMap has to be in this group?
>
>   PRACTICAL1: this will make it impossible to create a correct
> political map using OSM data.
>
>   PRACTICAL2: It is also EXTREMELY damaging to OpenStreetMap
> reputation. Now all opponents of OSM will be able to point fingers at
> this decision - "OSM recognises Crimeas annexation". And it now makes
> us all participate in Russian (ruled) project.
>
>   PRACTICAL3: While there are some talks about using OSM instead or
> alongside of commercial GIS solutions in the context of EU INSPIRE
> directive, such intentions will be seriously damaged by OSMF/DWG
> actions, because Europe has a very clear position of not recognising
> Crimeas annexation.
>
>   It would also be nice to know how members of DWG voted, to have more
> information on their attitudes towards Russian aggression. This would
> be important for those having a vote. But I do not know how to do that
> correctly, so that not to cause personal damage and avoid bullying.
>
>   I personally do not know how/if I can proceed with pushing
> OpenStreetMap to government or educational use...
>



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk