[Osmf-talk] Board response: Disputed Area Policy (Crimea request)

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Fri Feb 8 07:36:40 UTC 2019


Hi,

On 07.02.19 21:13, Christoph Hormann wrote:
>> On a more general note, there have been discussions about tagging
>> different sets of national borders on the tagging list and wiki
>> recently, and we
>> are looking forward to OpenStreetMap being able to model different,
>> even conflicting views of borders in the not so distant future.

> Let it be noted that with that statement the board in my eyes quite 
> clearly exceeds its own mandate 

You are being overly sensitive here. Next time the board says "we hope
for a prosperous year for all our members" you'll also shout "mandate
exceeded"?

> You here express you look forward to OSM 
> recording alternative views or opinions about the geography that 
> conflict with what is observable on the ground.  This is not a neutral 
> statement, this is expressing a specific direction in which you desire 
> the community to move.

"Desire to move" is perhaps too much. If the community doesn't move
there we can't make them, but "it would be great to see that happen" is
certainly true as far as I am concerned.

Being able to give everyone the boundary they are used to see will make
OSM more usable for many people. Currently this flexibility is
restricted to those who are able to set up their own tile servers and
modify the data. Also, conflicts like the one we've hopefully resolved
here could be reduced to practically nothing if different borders can be
shown to different visitors. This is state-of-the-art for the big
players and I think OSM, and its community, would greatly benefit from
it, though I'm using "it" here in a fuzzy way - the concrete
implementations steps are unclear, they consist of a tagging and a
rendering side, and whether the tagging proposal currently under way is
the best way to go, I don't have a clear opinion on.

Supporting developments that OSM and its community (are likely to)
benefit from is clearly the mandate of the OSM Foundation. So I don't
see the problem here. Microgrants or no microgrants, if someone came to
the OSMF, even five years ago, and said "yes I have this cool idea which
will largely solve boundary conflicts in OSM, can you give me some money
to develop this further", I wouldn't have hesitated to support that
(provided that it was affordable and the person looked like they could
actually do it). In your reply to Mikel you called such support a
"bribe". I think that's not an appropriate use of the word.

How much do I have to pay you to admit I'm right? ;)

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"



More information about the osmf-talk mailing list