[Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Yuri Astrakhan yuriastrakhan at gmail.com
Tue Mar 12 19:04:24 UTC 2019


John, thanks for all the work on this.

What surprises me is that some people are so oppose to the principal value
of OSM itself -- to allow mappers to map.  Disputed territories still need
to be mapped - because they reflect reality of the dispute, and because
many data consumers need it.  Without this data, I as a data consumer [1]
must bend over backwards to process data by hand, while sacrificing the
main appeal of the openness -- easy access to the community curated data --
see our recent work on India's counties [2]...

[1] -- Elastic maps service https://maps.elastic.co
[2] -- India disputed territories
https://github.com/elastic/ems-file-service/pull/89

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:22 PM Johnparis <okosm at johnfreed.com> wrote:

> Thanks. I never did post the final vote, which was 17 yes, 14 no, and 2
> abstain. (There was an additional yes vote after the time period elapsed,
> which has no effect on the outcome.)
>
> The proposal was therefore defeated, not having achieved anywhere near 74%
> approval. I suspect that it is not possible to get anything higher that
> what the proposal achieved (about 55%). I have not gone through the
> comments to see if further changes and another vote would make a difference.
>
> What surprised me, however, was the general lack of interest. I had
> thought this was a hot button issue, what with dozens of people registering
> with OSM, the big kerfuffle about Crimea, etc. If only 33 people are
> interested in this topic, it seems useless for me to continue to try to
> refine the proposal.
>
> Having comments during the voting seems useful, but I was taken aback by
> the fact that issues were raised during the voting that were not raised
> during the Request For Comments period. That strikes me as odd, since it
> raises issues that cannot be discussed during the voting. I refer, for
> example, to the idea of the "on the ground" principle.
>
> The proposal was written specifically to SUPPORT the "on the ground"
> principle, which I felt was undermined by the vote of the OSM Foundation
> board.
>
> The problem with the current system is that it conflates two things: the
> border claim by a country and the line of control for a country.
>
> Let's start with borders. ALL borders in OSM are based on claims. All of
> them. Even when you see a fence, a border crossing post, etc., those are
> REFLECTIONS of the border claim. They are not the border itself. And all
> borders (even maritime) are based on paper. Either there was a war and a
> treaty, or there is a traditional agreement, or in the case of maritime
> borders, there is (generally) a 12-mile boundary away from "baselines", all
> of which are claims. So to be clear, every single admin_level=2 boundary in
> OSM today is based on a claim.
>
> Lines of control are different, and are based on actual "on the ground"
> control. Those are fluid and difficult to ascertain in some cases, which is
> why the proposal spelled out a system that anyone could apply to know where
> and how to (literally) draw the line.
>
> Because it's basically impossible to eliminate the border claims (they are
> inherent to the OSM map), and because they are not observable "on the
> ground", the proposal was designed to eliminate the conflation between
> border claims and lines of control. The purpose of this is to support the
> on the ground principle. I am surprised that some people thought it might
> undermine it.
>
> Similarly with the list of claiming entities. There is ALREADY such a list
> ("political entities with ISO codes"), it is simply not consistently
> followed. The proposal offered specific criteria so everyone would know
> who's in and who's out, as well as a way to change the criteria.
>
> But enough of that. These things could have been discussed during the RFC.
> They weren't. I doubt with such a controversial topic, however, that a 74%
> vote would ever be possible. So I am content to mark it as "defeated".
>
> I do like Nathaniel's idea, and since we have "any tag you like" there is
> nothing to stop people from implementing the proposal as is. I do suspect
> that edit wars (as we have already seen) will follow, and I feel sorry for
> the Data Working Group and the OSM Foundation board -- I certainly wouldn't
> want to arbitrate those.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:50 PM Nathaniel V. Kelso <nvkelso at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi fellow mapping enthusiasts,
>>
>> Just a friendly heads up I've started to tag more disputed administrative
>> boundary lines in OpenStreetMap with tags for disputed=yes (but will leave
>> the existing dispute=yes alone), adding disputed_by=* on disputed ways, and
>> adding claimed_by=* on their relations to support multiple points-of-view.
>>
>> I posted a diary entry about this sprint here:
>> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/nvk/diary/47890
>>
>> So far I've limited editing to existing features (like in Kashmir,
>> Crimea, Western Sahara), but there actually aren't that may so I may start
>> adding missing ones later this month.
>>
>> If you have any questions please let me know, and if you want to help out
>> let's coordinate :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> _Nathaniel
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190312/3c0538c1/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list