<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/07/2021 22:15, Christoph Hormann
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:202107122115.56046.osm@imagico.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">On Monday 12 July 2021, Bert -Araali- Van Opstal wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
So your comments and opinions are respected, known and repeated
multiple times, taken into account, shared by many.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
Small but important correction here: I did not just express an opinion
shared by many, i made statements of fact. You are welcome to
challange those - but please keep in mind that the validity of these
statements does not depend on how many people share them as opinions.</pre>
</blockquote>
Noted and I agree. I will try my best in the rationale to
distinguish between facts and opinions.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:202107122115.56046.osm@imagico.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">[...]
A. where are the limits of "on the ground truth" and "verifiability"
in OSM,
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
The principle of verifiability in mapping in OSM finds its limits in
(and only in) the fact that there are no firm rules in OSM. So
individual mappers are free to ignore the verifiability principle and
add non-verifiable data (which happens frequently, sometimes to the
benefit of the project, sometimes to its damage). But you cannot
create policy that abolishes or constrains the verifiability
principle - because that would clash with the principle that there are
no firm rules in OSM.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>I disagree:</p>
<p>Most principles have constraints, even those in OSM. Like for
example "the freedom of speech" has a constraint when it comes to
the targetted use or expression of racism, incitement of violence,
sexual, religious exclusion etc.... <br>
With the principle of verifiability we have a guideline that says
local knowledge may prevail (not on the general page but spread on
different other wiki pages), by asking locals is a broadly
accepted practice. This is a strong principle, we should not
abandon it but it brings major issues. First of all how
representative is the "local", single or multiple representative
for a broader community. How large is the "local" community,
especially for larger geographical features, f.i. for the Pacific
Ocean do we have to ask and allow the term and all the local
language variants of each and every country, islands and islets in
the Pacific Ocean to be adopted in the name field ? Not only will
this cause technical issues but also practical issues. Yet any
failure to do so is exclusive, might be an expression or a
targeted policy to cause harm to these local communities.<br>
Secondly, to what extend are the locals free and unthreatened to
express their personal or community preferences. It can be
verified with surveys, but also surveys, as we all know can be
biased.<br>
"No firm rules" is true for most of the guidelines, not for
policies, especially those adopted and implemented by the OSMF. We
have an etiquette, it tries to define where the limits are, as a
community we should be obliged to translate these limits in proper
constraints on our principle guidelines, have fall back and
arbitrary procedures in place that clearly define how we react and
act if those constraints are violated or technically and
practically not feasible.<br>
This applies to many tags but is most prominent a challenge with
the name tagging schemes and boundaries. Abandoning these tags
will probably lead to a rather empty map and abandoning our
objective or principle "you are free to use any tag you want" .</p>
<p>It also relates to mapping physical features, advertisements,
boundary pillars, guideposts, signposts, street names etc... in
the "on the ground" truth principle. Practices in regard to
encroachment (purposely or unintended), territory and jurisdiction
disputes etc... . We are obliged, we MUST address these issues
with proper constraints, enforcement and arbitrary procedures. It
is a MUST in the same line as is expected by the world community
from f.i. social media. Failure to do so makes OSM a perfect
vehicle to practice and promote malpractices which are not
considered appropriate by the world community. Avoiding or failure
to do so is not an option if we choose to abide to these
principles, being it strict rules or guidelines. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:202107122115.56046.osm@imagico.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
So a classical dilemma: To attack the verifiability principle you would
need to use the fact that there are no firm rules in OSM. But that in
return would thwart any meaningful attack against the verifiability
principle - because as the wiki used to say (regarding verifiability):
"By virtue of common sense, it has become an official policy without
anyone consciously declaring it as such."
</pre>
</blockquote>
What we forget to mention here is how we enforce these guidelines.
Actions are taken by the DWG, let it be clear in "good faith"
(another principle) against users participating in editing wars
under the justification of "vandalism". An expression by individual
or small group of users of their local values or practices is
considered to be resolved by a local community. Local communities
which are by definition not necessarily representative or non-biased
in the context. In the cases where the editing war doesn't stop we
expect the DWG to resolve the issue or take corrective and arbitrary
actions. Based on what ? Principles or guidelines which are not
strict, have no constraints or strict limits, blocking users based
on what, reverting edits to what state ? The biased complaint from
some part of a local community or individual ? With my upmost
respect on how the DWG has handled these issues so far, but they
need a reference framework as a justification for the actions we
expect them to take. Failure to do so will and has lead to
subjective, biased actions. May lead to threads of physical harm and
personal threads.We should, we are obliged, to the DWG to offer them
a framework of strict rules and references to make decisions and
take actions which reflect the community consensus, a framework
which offers them respect and a secure environment to fullfil their
challenging mission.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:202107122115.56046.osm@imagico.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>