[OSM-talk] OSMF makes a political decision where should be a technical solution?

[Oleksiy Muzalyev]

The topic of territorial claims is very complicated, long lasting,  and 
painful. It involves not only such relatively remote and insignificant 
cases as Hans Island, Sudan, Croatia, Crimea, Pakistan, etc. cases, but 
also the industrial developed lands. For example, the Reconquista [1] in 
the USA is about millions of square kilometers, including the 
California, the 6th economical power in the world if taken by itself. 
After visiting some areas of Los Angeles, California, the Reconquista 
does not seem to me as ridiculous as before. Demography and linguistics 
do have certain significance.

Or the expulsion of Germans (the civilian population) from Eastern 
Poland after WW2 [2]. There is already in Germany the official 
organization The Centre Against Expulsions (German: Zentrum gegen 
Vertreibungen, ZgV) [3]. And the Germany is the world class industrial 
superpower.

Fortunately, these controversial massive cases are dormant, and I hope 
they will remain so. There are many other similar cases.

I suggested still several years ago to include in the OpenStreetMap 
foundation Core Values [4] the principle of Impartiality and Neutrality, 
similarly as it is done at the International Committee of Red Cross.
For example:
--------------
IMPARTIALITY
OSM makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, 
class or political opinions. It endeavours only to map the objective 
“Ground Truth”.

NEUTRALITY
In order to continue to enjoy the confidence of all, the OSM may not 
take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a 
political, racial, religious or ideological nature.
--------------

In 2014 Le Monde named the author Rana Dasgupta one of 70 people who are 
making the world of tomorrow. Rana Dasgupta wrote earlier this year an 
amazing article "The demise of the nation state" [6]. If what he writes 
is true, and it seems to be, the borders issue will become even more 
complicated.

In my opinion, the OSM should map nation states' borders in such a way 
as to promote constructive innovative peaceful resolutions of the 
territorial disputes. At the same time the interests of travelers and 
local residents should be also taken into account. If two competing 
borders are shown, still the line of passport control, where a tourist 
may be actually stopped for the passport & customs control somehow 
should be marked on the map. So she/he could prepare for the control, or 
not to cross inadvertently while hiking, cycling or rowing in wilderness.

No idea I heard or saw so far is perfect. I think there is still a lot 
of space for innovation in this domain.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista_(Mexico)
[2] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_Against_Expulsions
[4] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement
[5] 
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/misc/fundamental-principles-commentary-010179.htm
[6] 
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta

Best regards,
Oleksiy

On 23.11.18 10:10, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>> I fear that this is only "kicking the can down the road" though because
>> we'd likely have - just as we have with names - one "default" set of
>> boundaries where we say "that's the one you get if you don't ask for any
>> particular one", and the fight would then be on which one that is going
>    "default" is not required (map/app creator should have a freedom to
> make decision).
>
>    The only change required is to allow OVERLAPPING borders which
> apparently is a normal thing for borders even when there is no war,
> nobody on the ground to make "ground truth". For example:
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Island
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk