2020-02-07, pn, 17:18 Mateusz Konieczny via talk rašė: >> 1. On the ground rule has a number of different interpretations > Maybe. Is any of this interpretations leading to conclusion that Ukraine is > de facto controlling Crimea?
No, why should they? Ground rule (interpretations I know about) have nothing in common with this case (except stating that mapping borders is an exception). >> Therefore on the ground rule has NEVER >> EXISTED > WAT? Are you claiming that on the ground rule is my > hallucination? It certainly existed. Ground rule interpretation you're talking about has never existed. Otherwise why is it not visible in the data? > What kind of risk can be expected by specifying true fact > that invasion succeed and Russia is controlling Crimea? Go through the posts of last attempt and you will get the info. Succeeded is when everybody (or at least almost everybody) recognises the anschluss. > Do you propose to map Tibet as independent country, Well... Yes :-D China communist party does not like OSM anyway. Note, here situation is quite different from Crimea, unfortunately almost all nations do recognise that Tibet is currently controlled by China since the occupation in 1950. > delete Auschwitz concentration camps from the map, > etc because it is an evidence that some evil things happened? Sooo... you're proposing to map Crimea as belonging to Moscow and add a name "Occupied Ukrainian Crimea"? ;-) _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
