<div dir="ltr"><div id="gmail-magicdomid9" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-503u4r6dr6z122z5shdr">Dear OSMF members, DWG members, other interested parties:</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid10" class="gmail-"><br></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid13" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-503u4r6dr6z122z5shdr">After receiving the November 17, 2018 complaint, a sub-group of the OSMF board, consisting of those board members who were not also members of the Data Working Group, ruled to grant an appeal against DWG's decision to end an exception from the "on-the-ground rule" regarding the mapping of the boundaries of Ukraine.</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid14" class="gmail-"><br></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid15" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-503u4r6dr6z122z5shdr">Russia currently exercises control over Crimea, the "on-the-ground rule" would</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid16" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-503u4r6dr6z122z5shdr">require that Ukraine's boundary does not contain Crimea. However, this</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid19" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-ucq56eu0272w2oz122zk">i</span><span class="gmail-author-g-503u4r6dr6z122z5shdr">s a conflict situation and there were a large number of complaints from active members of our community in Ukraine. The previous situation with the exception in place was obviously much more acceptable to the OSM community as a whole, and our group decided to uphold the exception instead of ending it.</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid20" class="gmail-"><br></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid21" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-503u4r6dr6z122z5shdr">We have been asked if this means a general change to the existing rules,</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid22" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-503u4r6dr6z122z5shdr">and the answer is no.</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid23" class="gmail-"><br></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid24" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-503u4r6dr6z122z5shdr">We recognize that a lot of work has gone into the current Disputed Area</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid25" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-503u4r6dr6z122z5shdr">Policy, and both DWG and LWG have assured us that the "on the ground</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid27" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-503u4r6dr6z122z5shdr">rule" generally works well to avoid and settle conflicts. We, therefore, do not want to weaken that policy.</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid28" class="gmail-"><br></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid29" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-503u4r6dr6z122z5shdr">At the same time, we have seen that that in the concrete case of Crimea,</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid30" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-503u4r6dr6z122z5shdr">making an *exception* from this rule was the option that caused the</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid31" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-503u4r6dr6z122z5shdr">least strife in the OSM community.</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid32" class="gmail-"><br></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid33" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-rwtaugsed51yz122znq8">While there is nothing wrong with having exceptions from rules, it does</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid34" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-rwtaugsed51yz122znq8">put a heavy burden on the body making such exceptions to act fairly and</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid35" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-rwtaugsed51yz122znq8">accountable. We would, therefore, like to have the Disputed Area Policy</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid36" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-rwtaugsed51yz122znq8">extended with guidance on the circumstances under which exceptions can</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid37" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-rwtaugsed51yz122znq8">or should be made, and perhaps a mechanism of granting such exceptions</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid38" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-rwtaugsed51yz122znq8">and for their expiry. We will discuss the matter with LWG.</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid39" class="gmail-"><br></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid40" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-rwtaugsed51yz122znq8">On a more general note, there have been discussions about tagging</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid41" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-rwtaugsed51yz122znq8">different sets of national borders on the tagging list </span><span class="gmail-author-g-ucq56eu0272w2oz122zk">and wiki </span><span class="gmail-author-g-rwtaugsed51yz122znq8">recently, and we</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid42" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-rwtaugsed51yz122znq8">are looking forward to OpenStreetMap being able to model different, even</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid43" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-rwtaugsed51yz122znq8">conflicting views of borders in the not so distant future. This is a</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid44" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-rwtaugsed51yz122znq8">process that does not currently seem</span><span class="gmail-author-g-ucq56eu0272w2oz122zk"> to</span><span class="gmail-author-g-rwtaugsed51yz122znq8"> need board intervention, but we are</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid45" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-rwtaugsed51yz122znq8">following it with interest.</span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid46" class="gmail-"><br></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid47" class="gmail-"><span class="gmail-author-g-503u4r6dr6z122z5shdr">However you feel about this decision, we will not tolerate personal attacks on members of either DWG or the Board related to their position on this topic. Please see the Etiquette guidelines for more details. </span></div><div id="gmail-magicdomid48" class="gmail-"><br></div>Thank you <br clear="all"><div><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Secretary<br>OpenStreetMap Foundation<br>
<br>Name & Registered Office:<br>OpenStreetMap Foundation<br>St John's Innovation Centre<br>Cowley Road<br>Cambridge<br>CB4 0WS<br>United Kingdom<br>A company limited by guarantee, registered in England and Wales.<br>Registration No. 05912761.</div></div></div></div>