> When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199
And part of Russia: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60189#map=6/45.014/33.873&layers=C Imre Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. 21., V, 15:15): > Dear all, > > we all know how sensible the topic of disputed boundaries can be (they are > not necessarily a big problem, many boundary disputes like between Italy > and France about the summit of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco, have little > bearing on the actual life of people). > > Therefore we can all be satisfied there is clear guidance from the board > how to deal with this: the local situation determines how we map, and the > OSMF is explicit here: “National borders are particularly sensitive. > Currently, we record one set that, in OpenStreetMap contributor opinion, is > most widely internationally recognised and best meets realities on the > ground, generally meaning physical control.” > > > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation. > <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf> > pdf > > When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine > in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199 > > As many might know, the current boundary situation for Crimea was frozen 4 > years ago “for a short time” by the DWG and so I asked them about their > current position 2 months ago, and after I got no reply, tried to remind > them 5 weeks ago, but have not yet gotten any reply, so I am now opening > this thread here. > > IMHO, for consistency and credibility, we should either recognize that > Russia is actually controlling Crimea, or we should update the disputed > borders information. As I believe the general concept of ground truth for > admin boundaries was a good idea, I would tend to the former. > > I also believe the actual situation has already been ignored for too long. > When the thing is still dynamic or/and we’re in the middle of a conflict it > can be wise to step back and see for some time how things are evolving, but > 4 years are a lot of time, something like one year would seem more > reasonable. > > What do you think? > > Cheers, Martin > > sent from a phone > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> > *Date:* 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* *DWG policy on Crimea* > > > Dear members of the DWG, > > as of this question in the help forum: > > > https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65436/what-is-the-current-position-of-the-dataworkinggroup-on-crimea > > > I kindly invite you to reconsider and eventually update your position on > the situation in Crimea. > > As you have stated in 2014, this should not be the long term way to deal > with the situation, and short term is probably coming to an end. There is > clear guidance by the OSMF board how to deal with disputed boundaries (as > the situation seems to be more stable than some would have liked). > > My motivation is not promoting the Russian point of view, but to act > predictably and consistent wrt sensible topics. > > Thank you, > cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
