[OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Dec 11 13:35:25 UTC 2018
Am Di., 11. Dez. 2018 um 13:57 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch>:
> As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down
> the road.
> We will still have to make choices and even if that is just to declare
> that a boundary is disputed (which for example is definitely not
> something RU agrees with in the case of Crimea) and those choices will
> be continued to be questioned and attacked.
We would not have to declare that a boundary is "disputed", but we could
map who accepts or refuses recognition of a border (the mere fact that some
country does not recognize a border would be an indication that something
is "disputed" here). We would have to decide though whose acceptions and
refusals we consider worth adding (i.e. who we recognize as a country /
Yes, we would continue to make choices, but IMHO on a much more fine
grained level, on a different level in qualitative terms.
> If somebody wanted to use a
> different set of borders, they could have easily done so now, that is
> not the problem
they could have taken borders from a different source, with OSM data alone
you typically do not have sufficient information to understand who supports
which border, sometimes not even that there is a border dispute at all.
> The really nice property of the now defunct policy was that you could
> defend it with simple practical arguments, aka if you drive from A to B
> and we don't show de facto boundaries of control, you are dead. But 99%
> of the way the policy worked was through the appearance that it was cast
> in stone.
+1, once you open that can of worms, you'll see that it is not just _one_
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk