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

[Lambert Carsten]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:52:06 -0400
Serge Wroclawski <emacsen at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

...

> 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

Looking into the facts they seem to paint a different picture so
here is what I have found:

1. According to Dmitry it was "the East Jerusalem mappers
(that) complained to OSM" about the name tag on the Jerusalem node (not
the Israeli mappers as Serge claims). Only the DWG can enlighten us on
this.

2. There is relative little back and forth regarding the name tag
of the Jerusalem node when I look through the history. Most of
the time the name tag holds Jerusalem in Hebrew (there were more edits
but these are the ones possibly relevant to this issue):
	-27 jul 2011 OSMF removed the name tag and added warning note
	-30 dec 2010 talkat reverted to Hebrew alone
	-29 dec 2010 beweta added 'Jerusalem' in front of the Hebrew
	version
	-23 june 2010 talkat put the name tag back
	-23 june 2010 abuammar48 removed the name tag
	-22 june 2010 talkat reverted to Hebrew alone
	-20 june 2010 Esperanza36 added the Arabic name in front of the
	Hebrew version
	-11 may 2009 talkat reverted to Hebrew alone
	-9 may 2009 Esperanza36 added English and Arabic after Hebrew
	-22 jan 2009 talkat reverted to Hebrew alone
	-19 jan 2009 Esperanza36 added the Arabic name in front of the
	Hebrew version.
	-Before that some 'normal' corrections/editing.
None of these editors are 'newbies' with just one edit as Dmitry claims
so it's unclear to me where that comes from.
After the name tag removal bij OSMF user wikipod temporarily added the
name tag with Arabic and Hebrew, probably later realising the 'issue'
and removing it again.
	
3-The East Jerusalem node originally created in 2008, has had no back
and forth on the name tag until OSMF removed it tag on 30 jul 2011.

(Please add, correct or point to any relevant facts missing here.)

To me it looks like the DWG has acted to fast in removing the node and
by doing that made it look politically motivated: Their goal was to
stay out of a perceived political feud, but by trying to stay out of a
political feud that wasn't really there (in this case!), they
actually made the decision politically motivated! Life ain't easy :)

The facts in combination with OSM 'rules' (IMHO) points to a solution
being the way it was before this became an issue. Looking for a solution
through an agreement between the mappers is one of the last options we
should look at, not one of the first (as seems to have happened here).
Only if we cannot come to a conclusion using our rules and conventions
should we look to resolve a conflict through a compromise.
But keep in mind the real issue here (again IMHO) is the decision by
the DWG to remove the name tag and forbid anyone adding it until the
(other!) issue (between not clearly defined group of mappers) is
resolved by them.

Lambert Carsten