<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">Since 2009, at the very beginning of this Tagging list and the proposal process, the community developed a set of Good Practice guidelines, including the principle of verifiability:</div><div dir="ltr"><br><div><b style="color:rgb(32,33,34);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">"Verifiability</b><span style="color:rgb(32,33,34);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"> is an important concept to OpenStreetMap. OSM data should, as far as is reasonably possible, be verifiable. This is a </span><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice" title="Good practice" style="text-decoration:none;color:rgb(11,0,128);background-image:none;font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px">good practice</a><span style="color:rgb(32,33,34);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px"> guideline covering all mapping activity and a policy governing choices we make about which tags are used and gain acceptance, and other aspects of data representation. It essentially means <b>another mapper should be able to come to the same place and collect the same data</b> ("verify" the data you have entered)."</span><br></div><div><br></div><div>Because of this principle, any tags which represent features that do not exist in some local way are a problem. When I visit a hamlet, or a waterfall, I can confirm it's name by asking the local people. If I doubt that an international border is correct, perhaps because an area is disputed between two countries, I can go there and find out the reality.</div><div><br></div><div>Occasionally people want to import features from other databases, such as government cadastre (land ownership) data sets, or in this case from government databases which describe certain areas as being used for forestry. This is certainly useful data, and hopefully governments will release it publically.</div><div><br></div><div>But it is not data that individual OpenStreetMap users can hope to improve. Either it's right or it's wrong, if there is no way to tell by visiting the location in person, then there is no value added by us. We can only ever hope to exactly copy the most up to date government land ownership dataset, but it will always be a little out of date. And when one new mapper accidentally moves a node, then it will be wrong, without an easy way to see. </div><div><br></div><div>While it is frustrating that not all datasets can be added to OpenStreetMap, even useful ones like official land ownership or official land usage, we need to focus on what we can be good at.</div><div><br></div><div>Please read the whole "verifiability" and "Good practice" pages: <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability</a> and <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice</a></div><div><br></div><div>-- Joseph Eisenberg</div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 8:39 PM Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <<a href="mailto:bert.araali.afritastic@gmail.com">bert.araali.afritastic@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Verdana">Dear all, <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">I want to point out that there is a general
problem in comments contained in opposing votes and arguments
raised during the RFC in regard to this proposal, especially on:</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">A. boundaries and borders and ;</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">B. applied forestry practices and
definitions .</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">The main issue I am trying to make clear
relates to incorrect or misinterpreted formulation of "on the
ground" or "in situ" operating principles in regard to: <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">C. </font><font face="Verdana"><font face="Verdana">the OpenStreetMap Foundation policy on
"Disputed Territories" (<a href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf" target="_blank">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf</a>)<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">D. the UN regulations, policies and
recognition in regard to the governance of indigenous peoples or
local communities and the cultures and the form of social
organization of indigenous peoples and their holistic
traditional knowledge of their lands, natural resources and
environment (<a href="https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/publications/desktop-publications.html" target="_blank">https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/publications/desktop-publications.html</a>)</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">In regard to C. I want to reference the
following policy statements:</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">"<u><b>In areas without clearly defined
borders, the line is approximate.</b></u> Our database
structure enables mapmakers to easily ignore this set and
substitute another more appropriate to your needs."</font></p>
<p><font face="Verdana">"OpenStreetMap is a database. You are <u><b>free
to make maps</b></u> from our data<u><b> leaving out or
putting in what you need for harmony with your general
usage, culture and legal system</b></u>. We encourage you to
do this directly or to support one of our many worldwide local
OpenStreetMap communities that share your issue."</font></p>
<p>In no way do I represent, neither do I want to judge the
completeness of the OSMF policies, the interpretation of the "on
the ground" or "in situ" operating principles. By the references
given in this mail, from which I will provide a copy on the
proposals discussion page, I want to encourage you to carefully
consider your comments and discussion before you decide to publish
or allow to publish them in any public forums. That these comments
and discussions might be considered as violations of these
policies and inappropriate, with possible consequences as
stipulated in these policies.</p>
<p>To further support my personal view, I would like to reference
the World Resource Institute, a UN initiative and organisation
that publishes and maintaines:</p>
<p> the WDPA - World Database on Protected Areas, The WDPA is the
only global database of protected areas, and it is one of the
component databases of the Protected Planet Initiative. Protected
Planet® is a joint product of UNEP and IUCN, managed by
UNEP-WCMC and the IUCN working with governments,
communities and collaborating partners. They use OSM as a
base layer to publish their database and geodata and we should all
support their well considered guidelines, so they keep on using
and indirectly promoting OSM and it's relevance. (<a href="https://wdpa.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/WDPA_Manual/English/WDPA_WDOECM_Manual_1_6.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A54%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C97%2C217%2C0%5D" target="_blank">https://wdpa.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/WDPA_Manual/English/WDPA_WDOECM_Manual_1_6.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A54%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C97%2C217%2C0%5D</a>)<br>
<br>
In this regard I'de like to reference the following:</p>
<p>E.
</p><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">A further key use of the WDPA is
providing indicators on globally</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">-</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">agreed targets. In 2010, the </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">countries
of the world agreed on the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) Strategic Plan 2011 </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">-</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">2020 to halt biodiversity loss a</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">nd
ensure the sustainable use of natural resources (CBD 2010). </span></blockquote>
Which is clearly defined as one of the key and supporting goals of
forestry.<p></p>
<p>F.</p>
<p>
</p><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">There are still many protected
areas for which there is no IUCN Protected Area Management </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">Category
assigned</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">. The absence of a management category does
not in any way reduce the </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">importance of a protected area,
nor does it imply that the site is not being adequately
managed or </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">should be excluded from analyses.</span></blockquote>
Besides the WDPA the World Resource Institute also makes available
and freely distributes the OECM database - ‘other effective
area-based conservation measure’ (abbreviated to ‘OECM’).<br>
A geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which
is governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and
sustained long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of
biodiversity, with associated ecosystem functions and services
and where applicable, cultural, spiritual, socio–economic, and
other locally relevant values.<p></p>
<p>Amongst the minimum data requirements the following criteria are
defined and in my opinion, most of them well defined in this
proposal:</p>
<p>G.</p>
<p>
</p><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">Polygon data represent the
boundary of the protected area </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">or </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">OECM </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">as
submitted by the </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">data provider. </span></blockquote>
H.<p></p>
<p>
</p><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">Where boundary data </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">are </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">unavailable,
the latitude and </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">longitude of </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">the
centr</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">e</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">most
point of the site is requested as a </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">reference point for
the protected area</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif"> or OECM </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">instead.
</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">However</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">, it
should not be assumed that all points in the WDPA </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">represent
a central point of a given site. </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">If the protected area
</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">is
made up of multiple</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif"> parts, multi</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">-</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">points associated
with the </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">central locations of each part of the
protected area may be </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">stored instead.</span></blockquote>
I. In regard to verifiability of the data:<p></p>
<p>
</p><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">The Source Table</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">s </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">conform to the
minimum geographic information and services standards for </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">metadata
as described by the I</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">nternational Organization for
Standardization (ISO). Guidance and </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">definitions on the
source information requirements can be found in </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">Appendix
1</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">. </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">The source table </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">also
includes information on the party responsible for ver</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">ifying
the data, where relevant. This </span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">information is
completed by UNEP</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">-</span><span style="font-size:16.8px;font-family:sans-serif">WCMC in
collaboration with the data verifier.</span></blockquote>
So in regard to this proposal I suggest to stop the voting , and
re-open the discussion with positive comments, respect to the OSM
and UN polices .Any comment or personal opinion that <u><b>restricts
</b></u>the broadening of the scope of this proposal to comply
with these guidelines is not to be taken into account by the
writer. The same applies during the voting process where
opposition votes need to be justified with a comment referring to
one of these subjects: All votes referring to one of the excluded
criteria are considered VOID.<br>
<p></p>
<p>- 1. - borders and boundaries are to be included, even those that
cannot be checked in the field, as the OSM policy and the UN
guidelines clearly states that ALL boundaries .and borders can be
approximate. That there is no strict requirement of what is
defined as "on-the-ground" or "in-situ" verification for data
sources or the accuracy of the border or boundary;<br>
</p>
<p>- 2. - that sources MUST be defined and will be verified by a
third party. Currently these third parties are defined as "State
verified" or "Expert verified" in the WDPA and OECM database
without revealing their names due to good reasons. We do not have
any method to allow moderation or verification as is provided in
the WDPA and OECM in OSM yet. We will address, as a community this
issue to the foundation board and advise on how this should be
implemented or request a specific working group. However this is
out of the scope of this proposal. It is a general boundary and
border issue and might also apply to other keys, among which
landuse is a major one. As long as we don't have a solution for
this, we accept the thrid party or moderation principle, that all
sources are acceptable. It is not up to the individual OSM mapper
neither the community but through a qualified moderator or third
party to decide this, which as said should be addressed by the
foundation.</p>
<p>I hope this helps and can help David finalise his excellent work
sofar and help us to reach a final vote in which everyone respects
the freedoms of the mappers in OSM, all local communities and
indigenous people in our world.</p>
<p>To clarify this, I would like to request David to start <b>a new
vote,</b> of course feel free to adjust the words and add as he
wishes <b>that we continue the proposal process with these
exceptional restrictions.</b> If no support can be found for
this approach he can stop the proposal and it can be archived. If
we agree David can decide if he wants, finds or has the time to
bring this process to an end proposal and vote, or he requests the
community to find a volunteer to continue it. <br>
</p>
<p>Kind regards,</p>
<p>Bert Araali<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 16/02/2021 09:13, David Marchal via
Tagging wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Voting has started for boundary=forestry(_compartment)
relations.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>Sent with <a href="https://protonmail.com" target="_blank">ProtonMail</a> Secure Email.<br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Tagging mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a><br>
</blockquote></div>