[OSM-talk] Update: Advice needed - dispute regarding names in Cyprus

[Mikel Maron]

Lauri Hahne said it well...



> I think it's a mistake to claim all this kind of activity to zeal.
> Most of people living in or near disputed areas have been told all

> their live to use certain names and been told some reasons for it

> (like the "legality" argument) and also been told to defend their

> stance. They fail to see nothing wrong in their doing and even think

> that the other side must be zealot because he/she just can't get the

> "facts". Because these are far too important issues to blame just on
> zeal, I think that no account should be suspended solely because of

> actions like this unless the account is mainly used to this kind of

> actions.


We need to understand what's motivating people. A map is more than just a map .. it's a representation of reality. 
Maps have been used throughout history to lay territorial and economic claims -- they are primarily a tool of economics and politics.
 And as map makers we're going to need to engage with these issues.

OSM is a break with the past. There is the possibility to somehow represent all points of view. 
Creation of the map is open - "power" is within all contributors, and we need to manage that responsibility.

> And to counter things like this, I think OSM should make a statement

> like "OSM reflects the world as it is perceived by a person on ground

> at the very location. We only use data available on site and PD maps

> corrected to reflect the contemporary situation."


I support some kind of statement of the "OSM Way". Primarily I'd start with the importance of dialogue --
 if there's dispute over a place, then there must be discussion, not back and forth editing within the map. 
There may need to be some mechanisms to support that. 

As far as what should be rendered in the "official" view, I think there are three options.


* Display All

or as Jon Bright said "Basically, aim for documenting the situation without taking any
 position on it." 
This means documenting all variations. And in the rendered view, listing all the disputed names. 
For Cyprus this could work, since there are two. Not sure it scales to every disputed place.


* Different Views


Paul Fox said ..

> does osm have the ability to present multiple views of the
> database, for a given region?  rather than try and put all the
> (variant, disputed) data in one place, perhaps the data should be
> (effectively) put in two (or more) places/views, and when such a
> region is requested, the user should be forced to choose which
> view of the region they wish to see. 


* What's Navigable


This is the easiest technically. And is the most rational. And a clear cut rule.
Whether it would satisfy disputed areas, where more than reason is at stake, is unclear.


Bans and restrictions are really the last result. Not clear it will work. 

- Mikel