[OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Lambert Carsten <lhc.osm at solcon.nl> wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:47:52 +0200

> However the dispute Dmitry brought to our attention is about a decision
> made by the DWG. Their position seems to be to agree with anything the
> local mappers agree to. Few seem to regard that as viable but more
> importantly it is not the whole story. The rest of the community has a
> say too! In my opinion we have at least two relevant osm rules here:
> -we don't tag for the renderer;
> -the name tag holds the (IMHO: 'official') local name.
> The statement by Frederik seems to contradict both these 'rules'.
> I think we could help resolve this issue if we can determine
> if these rules hold true or not.

I've largely stayed out of "taking sides" but I think one thing that's
missing here which Dmitry tried to express is that the issue of "local
community" in this case.

As I understand it, the only consistent local community are a handful
of Israeli mappers. Other contributors in the area did not edit in a
meaningful way (did not contribute much to the map) and their
motivation to sign up to OSM and click the Edit button was only to
change the name of the city.

And since the dispute, there have been no meaningful contributions on
the side who wishes the city name to not be Jerusalem.

Therefore the  request that there be local community consensus is
going to be impossible to reach, since there are contributors from the
"other side" do not exist.

The difficulty here seems to be some missteps by both the Israeli
mappers, the OSMF as represented by Mikel and the DWG, which I'll
outline, as I understand it.

1. Some Palestinians were bothered by the mentioning of Jerusalem as
Israeli. They then decided to log in and change the map in order to
change this.
2. The Israeli mappers were frustrated by what appeared to them as
vandalism, and changed it back.
3. Repeat 1,2.

The Israeli mappers then requested someone "fix the situation" and
made a request of the OSMF. Mikel then stepped in, representing the
OSMF, and came in with the understanding that both sides were active
contributors, and this was a mapping dispute.

A series of meetings occurred. Details of the meetings are in the
forums, but they sound like they weren't productive.

Mikel and DWG did what OSMF often does, which is to take a largely
"hands off" approach, throwing the issue back down to the local
community to resolve.

The problem here is that without "another side" there can be no "consensus".

Add to this the incredibly charged situation that is the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict. There are very few "neutral parties", or
people with no preconceived notions, and so it's easy to have a "gut
reaction" influence the decision process.

And then add two parties which have grown up in a place where
diplomatic talk and diplomatic process is the predominant form of
conflict, so it feels "natural" to them, and both sides of a conflict
are skilled in knowing how to use the process as a weapon, rather than
as a meant of achieving an agreement.


Back to the point, I think the technical issues are too far away to
solve. I think the political issues are too complex to address. In
this case, I'd say that the DWG should be looking for consensus
amongst active contributors, rather than the "two parties", and all
parties involved need to realize that this is just going to happen
here, as it sometimes happens in other areas.

- Serge