<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 23/11/2018 21:03, Tomas Straupis
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+f=8=pYmQ21dJsRXh5K1jWt=Rc4qRzrJO8U7imLpTkz4eSPvQ@mail.gmail.com"><br>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> Ok. So do I understand OSMF position is this:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>All the answers here are "my personal understanding of OSM's
collective position, based on many years to and fro in mailing
lists, wiki pages, etc. etc.". Some of the questions below are
technical, some are political, some have implications for how data
is stored and some have implications for how data is represented
(and it's important to disconnect those last two). Also, OSM is a
very broad church and some people have very different views about
what we should record and how we should record it.</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+f=8=pYmQ21dJsRXh5K1jWt=Rc4qRzrJO8U7imLpTkz4eSPvQ@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
1. There are no technical problems with having international
boundaries overlapping and representing official position of involved
countries.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>There are technical problems, in that things may be "double
counted" - the "total number of X in the world" will be higher if
we count by overlapping countries. However, often we're choosing
the "least worst option" - the one with fewest problems (technical
and political), not the one with none.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+f=8=pYmQ21dJsRXh5K1jWt=Rc4qRzrJO8U7imLpTkz4eSPvQ@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap=""> 2. International boundaries DO sometimes overlap.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I'm not actually aware of a situation where countries have said
"this bit belongs equally to both of us" (I'd be interested to
hear of any examples, actually), though there are plenty of places
where they say "I think it belongs to me, and you think it belongs
to you, but let's work together and manage it jointly".<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+f=8=pYmQ21dJsRXh5K1jWt=Rc4qRzrJO8U7imLpTkz4eSPvQ@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
3. OSMF is aware that overlapping boundaries would have satisfied
more users (especially LOCAL users).</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>There's a clear split here between the views of people from
Ukraine (and other countries closer to Russia's borders) and
mappers from elsewhere. The former are saying "Ukraine was
invaded and part was taken away by force; maps should show it as
part of Ukraine because that act was not legal according to
International law". The latter are saying "we have always mapped
what's on the ground, regardless of the legal situation".</p>
<p>Essentially it's a political decision what the admin_level=2
boundaries in OSM should reflect. There's no one answer that will
please everyone - if we said that admin_level=2 boundaries should
show "the extent that each country thinks that it should have
regardless of actual control on the ground" then we'd have to
invent another boundary type for "actual borders" that did tell
people where they were crossing a patrolled frontier.<br>
</p>
<p>Conversely, I personally don't think that there's a reason
(subject to verifiability, which isn't a problem here) why claims
such as this shouldn't be in OSM (so that people can make maps
from them), just as long as people can't confuse them with the
areas that particular countries actually control. Western Sahara
is an example - <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2559126">https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2559126</a> .
There was a discussion (with mappers who'd been active in the area
and in the OSM boundaries forum) that decided that Morocco should
be in OSM as the area that it controls, and the SADR area as the
area outside that. According to the UN, Western Sahara should be
a country, and if someone wants to create a map based on OSM data
that shows the boundary of Western Sahara, they can, because that
data is in OSM.<br>
</p>
<p>It's important to remember this last point - anyone can, and is
encouraged to, make their own maps from OSM data. What you see in
the "standard style" at openstreetmap.org is just one possible
rendering of many. If you want to render OSM data without
boundaries and then overlay a set of boundaries on it, you can
(see <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/47007">https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/47007</a>
for a worked example). If you want to have different boundaries
displayed for different URLs or different audiences, you can do
that too (and many consumers of OSM data do exactly that).</p>
<p>There are other technical options about how best to show de jure
and de facto boundaries. As another example have a look at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.mapquest.com/">https://www.mapquest.com/</a> and browse to Western Sahara - there are
at least 3 different styles of boundaries shown there that
represent de facto and de jure country boundaries. Those are
technical decisions made by the people making those maps (in this
case Mapbox, based on OSM data).</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CA+f=8=pYmQ21dJsRXh5K1jWt=Rc4qRzrJO8U7imLpTkz4eSPvQ@mail.gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
4. Precedence is taken by "most widely internationally recognised
and best meets realities on the ground" where only second part is
actually important, so this sentence should be changed to "best meets
realities on the ground IRRESPECTIVE OF WIDE INTERNATIONAL
RECOGNITION".
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Frankly you're really not helping your argument by cherry-picking
pieces of text from
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf</a>
like that. For the avoidance of doubt the full sentence from
which you have quoted part of is:</p>
<p> <b>"Currently, we record one set that, in OpenStreetMap
contributor opinion, is most widely internationally recognised
and best meets realities on the ground, generally meaning
physical control." </b><br>
</p>
<p>It seems to me that it's the application of exactly that
principle to the Russia/Ukraine border that you're objecting to. -
it is widely internationally recognised that Russia now controls
Crimea. By all means lobby the developers of maps based on OSM
data about how they show particular countries to particular
audiences, and ensure that (where verifiable) data is contained
within OSM to allow those maps to be made, but please don't say
that this decision went against the letter or the spirit of that
policy. Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions - as I said
near the top of this email, often we're choosing the "least worst
option" of all of the available ones.</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy Townsend (from the Data Working Group, but written in a
personal capacity)</p>
<p>PS: If anyone would like any help with any of the technical stuff
(setting up a server, multiple sets of boundaries for multiple
groups of users, different languages) then please do just ask
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://help.openstreetmap.org">https://help.openstreetmap.org</a> is a good place to start). There
are lots of options and lots of resources out there, and despite
all the list, diary and forum posts I don't think I've seen anyone
ask.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>