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 any alignment on how OSM actually works. > It’s neither a contradiction, nor is it a false base. It is a false base because if we would say that Crimea decision is based on wide-spread and old OSM principle of X - then in would be understandable. But X is not a wide-spread, it is even almost non existent. So it is pointless, you can simply say "I decided this way just because". > it’s not about standing on the side of someone specific, it’s a general > question of adhering to one’s own policy. There is no such policy as "ground truth" (interpretation used in Crimea case) in real life (in real database or wide-spread practice of how we map). It is a smoke screen and there is no point of "defending" non-existant thing and raise this issue again as I'm totally sure it will raise the same havoc it did last time. And "neutral" is current decision, because it supports both sides - Ukraine and Moscow - equally. -- Tomas _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
