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

[tim]

In search of an "official" way that the UN approaches this, i found
that very recently, August 2007, there was a UN conference -  United
Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names.

at that conference, Turkey presented a technical paper on
"Representation of Geo-Political Disputes in Geo-Names Supported
Information Systems"

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/9th-UNCSGN-Docs/E-CONF-98-30-Add1.pdf

They give three options in case of a "bi-lateral dispute":
 a) showing both datasets, useful where coverage is unknown b)
providing one, and keeping the other linked to and c) discarding the
other and going for just one of them.

They are saying that because of modern technology, that b) is probably
best, in other words, allowing two views to coexist....


- Tim


On Nov 11, 2007 10:41 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> 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'
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>