Am Di., 11. Dez. 2018 um 13:57 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole <[email protected]>:
> > As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down > the road. > > We will still have to make choices and even if that is just to declare > that a boundary is disputed (which for example is definitely not > something RU agrees with in the case of Crimea) and those choices will > be continued to be questioned and attacked. We would not have to declare that a boundary is "disputed", but we could map who accepts or refuses recognition of a border (the mere fact that some country does not recognize a border would be an indication that something is "disputed" here). We would have to decide though whose acceptions and refusals we consider worth adding (i.e. who we recognize as a country / significant entity). Yes, we would continue to make choices, but IMHO on a much more fine grained level, on a different level in qualitative terms. > If somebody wanted to use a > different set of borders, they could have easily done so now, that is > not the problem they could have taken borders from a different source, with OSM data alone you typically do not have sufficient information to understand who supports which border, sometimes not even that there is a border dispute at all. > > The really nice property of the now defunct policy was that you could > defend it with simple practical arguments, aka if you drive from A to B > and we don't show de facto boundaries of control, you are dead. But 99% > of the way the policy worked was through the appearance that it was cast > in stone. > +1, once you open that can of worms, you'll see that it is not just _one_ case ;-) Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
