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

Thu Feb 18 05:44:21 UTC 2021

Since 2009, at the very beginning of this Tagging list and the proposal
process, the community developed a set of Good Practice guidelines,
including the principle of verifiability:

*"Verifiability* is an important concept to OpenStreetMap. OSM data should,
as far as is reasonably possible, be verifiable. This is a good practice
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice> guideline covering all
mapping activity and a policy governing choices we make about which tags
are used and gain acceptance, and other aspects of data representation. It
essentially means *another mapper should be able to come to the same place
and collect the same data* ("verify" the data you have entered)."

Because of this principle, any tags which represent features that do not
exist in some local way are a problem. When I visit a hamlet, or a
waterfall, I can confirm it's name by asking the local people. If I doubt
that an international border is correct, perhaps because an area is
disputed between two countries, I can go there and find out the reality.

Occasionally people want to import features from other databases, such as
government cadastre (land ownership) data sets, or in this case from
government databases which describe certain areas as being used for
forestry. This is certainly useful data, and hopefully governments will
release it publically.

But it is not data that individual OpenStreetMap users can hope to improve.
Either it's right or it's wrong, if there is no way to tell by visiting the
location in person, then there is no value added by us. We can only ever
hope to exactly copy the most up to date government land ownership dataset,
but it will always be a little out of date. And when one new mapper
accidentally moves a node, then it will be wrong, without an easy way to
see.

While it is frustrating that not all datasets can be added to
OpenStreetMap, even useful ones like official land ownership or official
land usage, we need to focus on what we can be good at.

Please read the whole "verifiability" and "Good practice" pages:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 8:39 PM Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <
bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 area or 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 multiple parts, 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 listTagging at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210217/6ec04b18/attachment-0001.htm>