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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

> 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.

I think we might (somehow, in the distant future) formalize an
individual's (or a group of individuals') right to their version.

Just as the license aims so make sure that anything is possible
*except* "taking something away", edits that take something away which
someone else has deliberately put there might be restricted somehow.

I'm thinkin something like this: If I put a number of tags on a way, I
will normally not mark them specially, so anyone can delete them. But
I might also mark them "persistent in data set fred1234", in which
case only people with special editing power for dataset fred1234 will
be able to edit or remove these.

Creation and management of datasets would be available for anyone
(think IRC channels - the one who opens one automatically becomes the
boss and may give that right to others). 

Whenever you access the map, you can specify which datasets you want
to include. 

For a conflict like the one we currently have, this would mean that
there would be two datasets, one Greek and one Turkish, both only
editable by a few select people, and there would be the map renderer
config which would contain info about which data sets to use. 

Because, after all, the decision needs to lie with the renderer (or
other user) and not with the mapper - what we currently see is mappers
trying to force their world view onto the renderer (or user), instead
of allowing him to chose; this is wrong.

> or as Jon Bright said "Basically, aim for documenting the situation
> without taking any position on it."

However, documenting a different view is already seen as taking a
position by some parties involved.

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

It would be relatively easy to put blanket "area locks" in the API so
that nobody (or only select accounts) may edit within the area. In the
context of changesets/rollback and so on, we might also be able to
introduce a "moderated" mode for some changes, i.e. when there's
an area lock, edits are put into a queue for review. (This review
could again be peer-based, i.e. you need a quorum of people approving
it or so... open to abuse probably.)

Locking disputed articles is what Wikipedia does, in the hope of the
situation cooling down; but sometimes it seems that articles stay
locked forever which is a bit undesirable.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00.09' E008°23.33'