[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - boundary=forestry(_compartment) relations

Thu Feb 18 04:36:58 UTC 2021

Dear all,

I want to point out that there is a general problem in comments
contained in opposing votes and arguments raised during the RFC in
regard to this proposal, especially on:

A. boundaries and borders and ;

B. applied forestry practices and definitions .

The main issue I am trying to make clear relates to incorrect or
misinterpreted formulation of "on the ground" or "in situ" operating
principles in regard to:

C. the OpenStreetMap Foundation policy on "Disputed Territories"
(https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf)

D. the UN regulations, policies and recognition in regard to the
governance of indigenous peoples or local communities and the cultures
and the form of social organization of indigenous peoples and their
holistic traditional knowledge of their lands, natural resources and
environment
(https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/publications/desktop-publications.html)

In regard to C. I want to reference the following policy statements:

"_*In areas without clearly defined borders, the line is approximate.*_ 
Our database structure enables mapmakers to easily ignore this set and
substitute another more appropriate to your needs."

"OpenStreetMap is a database. You are _*free to make maps*_ from our
data_*leaving out or putting in what you need for harmony with your
general usage, culture and legal system*_. We encourage you to do this
directly or to support one of our many worldwide local OpenStreetMap
communities that share your issue."

In no way do I represent, neither do I want to judge the completeness of
the OSMF policies, the interpretation of the "on the ground" or "in
situ" operating principles. By the references given in this mail, from
which I will provide a copy on the proposals discussion page, I want to
encourage you to carefully consider your comments and discussion before
you decide to publish or allow to publish them in any public forums.
That these comments and discussions might be considered as violations of
these policies and inappropriate, with possible consequences as
stipulated in these policies.

To further support my personal view, I would like to reference the World
Resource Institute, a UN initiative and organisation that publishes and
maintaines:

the WDPA - World Database on Protected Areas, The WDPA is the only
global database of protected areas, and it is one of the component
databases of the Protected Planet Initiative. Protected Planet® is a
joint product  of UNEP and  IUCN,  managed  by  UNEP-WCMC  and  the 
IUCN  working  with  governments, communities   and   collaborating  
partners. They use OSM as a base layer to publish their database and
geodata and we should all support their well considered guidelines, so
they keep on using and indirectly promoting OSM and it's relevance.
(https://wdpa.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/WDPA_Manual/English/WDPA_WDOECM_Manual_1_6.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A54%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C97%2C217%2C0%5D)

In this regard I'de like to reference the following:

E.

> A further key use of the WDPA is providing indicators on
> globally-agreed targets. In 2010, the countries of the world agreed on
> the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Strategic Plan 2011 -2020
> to halt biodiversity loss and ensure the sustainable use of natural
> resources (CBD 2010). 
Which is clearly defined as one of the key and supporting goals of forestry.

F.

> There are still many protected areas for which there is no IUCN
> Protected Area Management Category assigned. The absence of a
> management category does not in any way reduce the importance of a
> protected area, nor does it imply that the site is not being
> adequately managed or should be excluded from analyses.
Besides the WDPA the World Resource Institute also makes available and
freely distributes the OECM database -  ‘other effective area-based
conservation measure’ (abbreviated to ‘OECM’).
A geographically defined area other than a Protected Area, which is
governed and managed in ways that achieve positive and sustained
long-term outcomes for the in situ conservation of biodiversity,  with
associated ecosystem functions and services and where applicable,
cultural, spiritual, socio–economic, and other locally relevant values.

Amongst the minimum data requirements the following criteria are defined
and in my opinion, most of them well defined in this proposal:

G.

> Polygon data represent the boundary of the protected area or OECM as
> submitted by the data provider. 
H.

> Where boundary data are unavailable, the latitude and longitude of the
> centremost point of the site is requested as a reference point for the
> protected areaor OECM instead. However, it should not be assumed that
> all points in the WDPA represent a central point of a given site. If
> the protected area is made up of multipleparts, multi-points
> associated with the central locations of each part of the protected
> area may be stored instead.
I. In regard to verifiability of the data:

> The Source Tables conform to the minimum geographic information and
> services standards for metadata as described by the International
> Organization for Standardization (ISO). Guidance and definitions on
> the source information requirements can be found in Appendix 1. The
> source table also includes information on the party responsible for
> verifying the data, where relevant. This information is completed by
> UNEP-WCMC in collaboration with the data verifier.
So in regard to this proposal I suggest to stop the voting , and re-open
the discussion with positive comments, respect to the OSM and UN polices
.Any comment or personal opinion that _*restricts *_the broadening of
the scope of this proposal to comply with these guidelines is not to be
taken into account by the writer. The same applies during the voting
process where opposition votes need to be justified with a comment
referring to one of these subjects: All votes referring to one of the
excluded criteria are considered VOID.

- 1. - borders and boundaries are to be included, even those that cannot
be checked in the field, as the OSM policy and the UN guidelines clearly
states that ALL boundaries .and borders can be approximate. That there
is no strict requirement of what is defined as "on-the-ground" or
"in-situ" verification for data sources or the accuracy of the border or
boundary;

- 2. - that sources MUST be defined and will be verified by a third
party. Currently these third parties are defined as "State verified" or
"Expert verified" in the WDPA and OECM database without revealing their
names due to good reasons. We do not have any method to allow moderation
or verification as is provided in the WDPA and OECM in OSM yet. We will
address, as a community this issue to the foundation board and advise on
how this should be implemented or request a specific working group. 
However this is out of the scope of this proposal.  It is a general
boundary and border issue and might also apply to other keys, among
which landuse is a major one. As long as we don't have a solution for
this, we accept the thrid party or moderation principle, that all
sources are acceptable. It is not up to the individual OSM mapper
neither the community but through a qualified moderator or third party
to decide this, which as said should be addressed by the foundation.

I hope this helps and can help David finalise his excellent work sofar
and help us to reach a final vote in which everyone respects the
freedoms of the mappers in OSM, all local communities and indigenous
people in our world.

To clarify this, I would like to request David to start *a new vote,* of
course feel free to adjust the words and add as he wishes *that we
continue the proposal process with these exceptional restrictions.* If
no support can be found for this approach he can stop the proposal and
it can be archived. If we agree David can decide if he wants, finds or
has the time to bring this process to an end proposal and vote, or he
requests the community to find a volunteer to continue it.

Kind regards,

Bert Araali

On 16/02/2021 09:13, David Marchal via Tagging wrote:
> Voting has started for boundary=forestry(_compartment) relations.
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boundary%3Dforestry(_compartment)_relations
>
>
> Sent with ProtonMail <https://protonmail.com> Secure Email.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210218/b33dc2a0/attachment-0001.htm>