[Local-chapters] Arbitration of conflicts

[Erik Johansson]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Julio Costa <juliocostaz at gmail.com> wrote:
> In late January I had a meeting with Chiles Ministry of Foreign
> Affairs Department of Frontiers and Boundaries, and among other topics
> of discussion, they made a formal claim about that boundary (I think
> mostly because the OSMF and CloudMade mapnik renders still showed only
> the peruvian claim at most zoom levels).
>
> Since that meeting I started thinking about how to solved this (any
> way to block edition on specific ways or nodes?). The renders did not
> updated and this week I decided to apply a reciprocity policy deleting
> the diagonal line (the minute I did that all except one zoom level of
> the OSMF render started showing the parallel line again, I have no
> explanation for that), at least till the ICJ says different.

Then you say:
> Also the people from the Boundaries and Frontiers Direction (I made
> a mistake with their name in my last message), made their position very
> clear, even though I explained them that the international OSM community
> will not like to get in the middle of a bilateral dispute, no matter how good
> or fair the Chilean position is, or if we did not took part on starting this dispute.

In my opinion it's not the business of OSMF or the editors of OSM to
solve/censor border conflicts, To be fair to Peru I think you should
add the conflict area to Peruvian/Chilean border.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=-18.339&lon=-70.384&zoom=11

Similar to the Slovenia and Croatia border conflict, last time I heard
they were in court.
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=45.497&lon=13.464&zoom=11

For the record I've lived in Bolivia and I know they want the same
area, and this claim still effects the internal politics of Bolivia,
but that's an 130 year old conflict.. So I understand adding all
border conflicts into OSM would be ridiculous


-- 
/emj