[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Mapping disputed boundaries
okosm at johnfreed.com
Tue Nov 27 09:04:30 UTC 2018
>From the proposal: *The de facto border is the one that conforms to the
Policy's statement: "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."*
The question of "physical control" is, I believe, not at issue. The fact
that Russia exercises physical control is precisely what Ukraine objects
to. So both sides agree that Russia has physical control of Ukraine. But if
there were a dispute, again from the proposal: *Disputes about which
claiming entity, if any, exercises control over a particular territory can
be resolved by the OSM Institutions* (meaning the OSMF or the DWG). The
criterion of "most widely internationally recognised", and how it might
conflict with the criterion of "best meets realities on the ground", is at
issue. So the de facto situation remains one that the OSM Institutions
would have to resolve. When resolved, the de facto border would get the
"boundary:status=osm_designated" tag, which essentially makes it "not
subject to change" (by ordinary mappers, anyway).
The claims, which are new in the proposal, are relatively easier to
determine. A Ukraine supporter would map using the Ukrainian claim; a
Russia supporter using the Russian claim. Both countries are members of the
UN, so both have the right to stake a claim.
"Mapping to the satisfaction of both groups" is probably impossible and
certainly not the goal of the proposal. Again, from the proposal:
*The purpose of this proposal is to advance the implementation of the
Policy on Disputed Territories
of the OSM Foundation <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Foundation>,
as implemented and enforced by its Data Working Group
to collectively in this proposal as the OSM Institutions), and in
particular the policy's Summary Point 4, which states in part:*
*We recognise the importance of names, borders and descriptions to
different national, ethnic, culture or language groups. We have and will
continue to build mechanisms where alternatives can be recorded and easily
used in maps.*
The proposal offers a possible mechanism.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:12 AM Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm trying to understand how the current situation in Crimea has to be
> mapped with your proposal.
> The Ukranian community wants the old border (before the Russian
> invasion) to be the de-facto border.
> I assume that the Russian community wants the border elsewhere, so
> Crimea becomes Russian territory. Since Crimea is occupied/controlled
> by the Russians, one could expect that some mappers will place the
> de-facto border so that Crimea falls in Russia.
> Can you elaborate how we would map the situation to the satisfaction
> of both groups ?
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 8:30 AM Johnparis <okosm at johnfreed.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 4:31 AM Daniel Koć <daniel at koć.pl> wrote:
> >> W dniu 27.11.2018 o 03:21, Johnparis pisze:
> >> > A general proposal to address mapping disputed borders at the national
> >> > level.
> >> What is the link to this RFC? This one seems to be old and abandoned:
> >> --
> >> "Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Tagging mailing list
> >> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging