sent from a phone
> Il giorno 7 feb 2020, alle ore 14:13, Tomas Straupis > <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
