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

Lambert Carsten lhc.osm at solcon.nl
Thu Oct 6 11:22:53 BST 2011


On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 23:04:02 +0100
"Andy Robinson" <ajrlists at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mediation currently appears problematic because only one side of the
> discussion is present. Ideally I'd like to see a joint statement from
> the two sides (the local mappers) that states what the difference(s)
> of position are. If it can't be joint then at least two separate
> statements. At the moment we have one side making a lot of noise only
> which means there is no practical route to mediation presently.
Is it correct that this all started with the now silent 'other side'
asking the DWG to step in?
In that case maybe the DWG should revert their 'name removal decision'
and let the local mappers continue the way things were before. The
silent side can always decide to speak up in which case you will have
something to mediate. Can we even speak of a dispute if one party is
absent?

I still think the real dispute is about the name tag and they just want
it back, as do I.

Lambert Carsten



More information about the talk mailing list