[Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

David Groom reviews at pacific-rim.net
Fri Aug 7 13:45:12 UTC 2020


------ Original Message ------
From: "Christoph Hormann" <osm at imagico.de>
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" 
<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: 07/08/2020 08:27:23
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Rio de la Plata edit war

>
>I concur with a lot of your observations and like you i had essentially
>given up on the idea of the coastline representing meaningful
>information in the long term.  But considering this is a very sad
>conclusion which essentially means OpenStreetMap failing in its primary
>goal in the single most fundamental mapping task of the planet, namely
>the distinction between ocean and land, i am trying my best here to
>work towards a consensus - no matter how slim the chances are from my
>perspective.
I agree
>
>
>>  1) We should establish an agreed "OSM Coastline position", which I
>>  suggest would approximate to the position of the coastline on 1
>>  January 2020.
>>
>>  2) Any edit which moved the position of the coastline by more than
>>  20Km from the established position should be classed as vandalism,
>>  unless such movement had previously been agreed by the community.
>
>That is a practically feasible approach but it would form a major
>beachhead in abolishing the principle of verifiablility in
>OpenStreetMap in favor of adopting the major consensus narrative of the
>OSM community as the reality to map rather than the intersubjectively
>verifiable reality.
>
>To put it bluntly:  In your scenario if the OSM community agreed on
>ignoring the physical reality mapping of the coastline could depart
>arbitrarily far from said physical reality.
But we are only having this discussion because there are places where 
the coastline boundary has no "physical reality".
>
>We de facto already have the situation that if edits are contested the
>status quo is the fallback.  And more strongly formalizing that in case
>of the coastline could be a good idea.  But to forgo having a
>verifiable definition of the coastline tag supported by consensus is
>not a good idea IMO.
I am quite happy for my proposal to be an interim solution until there 
is a "verifiable definition of the coastline tag supported by consensus"

I would however modify my last point (2) to be

(2) In the case of disagreement, any edit which moved the position of the coastline by more than 20Km from the established position should prima facie be classed as vandalism, unless such movement had previously been agreed by the OSM community.

This modification primarily allows for the continuing improvement of the PGS import without needlessly seeking prior approval in each instance

David
>
>
>Christoph Hormann
>http://www.imagico.de/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200807/24c0bdc9/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list