<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
22. Oct 2018 15:51 by <a href="mailto:yuriastrakhan@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">yuriastrakhan@gmail.com</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <<a href="mailto:matkoniecz@tutanota.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">matkoniecz@tutanota.com</a>> wrote:<br /></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 0.8ex ; border-left: 1px #ccc solid ; padding-left: 1ex">
<div><blockquote class="m_-6392276033010924189tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93a3b8 ; padding-left: 10px ; margin-left: 5px"><div>I
think a country relation should describe how the specific country think
of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two
relations will overlap.</div></blockquote><p>That is absurd and conflict with OSM rule to map what exists. <br /></p></div></blockquote><div>On
the contrary, it actually matches OSM rules better than deciding
yourself. When drawing a city outline, you go to that city's
government, and get the geoshape from them. </div></div></div></blockquote><p><br /></p><p> </p><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>By extension, if you draw a country, you should use that country's definition. </div></div></div></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>I strongly disagree, we map reality. When I map a business I map what exists there, not</p><p>what the owner claims to be existing. When I map road I map what exists not what is</p><p>supposed to exist there according to official sources.</p><p><br /></p><p>When I map the border of a country I map line of control, not an official claim of the country.</p><p><br /></p><p>Maybe "officially claimed border of country" is also mappable but it would not be marked as</p><p>a border.<br /></p><p> </p><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>By extension, if you draw a country, you should use that country's definition. </div></div></div></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>I also disagree as for when it comes to making maps. I see no reason why I should be</p><p>obligated by official claims by specific country. I may follow them in some cases but</p><p>it is often undesirable or harmful.<br /></p><p> </p><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>If two country's definitions happen to overlap, we ought to document both.</div></div></div></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>I am not sure whatever we should map border claims.<br /></p><p> </p><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0 0 0 0.8ex ; border-left: 1px #ccc solid ; padding-left: 1ex"><div><blockquote class="m_-6392276033010924189tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93a3b8 ; padding-left: 10px ; margin-left: 5px"><div><div>So
when I generate a map for Russia, I have to show Crimea as part of
Russia. For Ukraine - as part of Ukraine. Same for China and India and
...</div></div></blockquote><p>There are also other sources of data.
For example to show proper terrain shape or to show ratings of
restaurants and for many others use cases OSM is not sufficient.</p></div></blockquote><div>The
argument "it doesn't work for X, therefor we shouldn't make it work for
Y" is puzzling.</div></div></div></blockquote><p>No, I was just reminding that OSM is not for all and every geographical data.</p><p><br /></p><p>I am not sure whatever border claims are one of these cases.<br /></p> </body>
</html>