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

[Gert Gremmen]

This is a boring discussion, and only triggered by what should be out of 
OSM : National Claims.

Borders are almost invisible on the ground either, at least in civilized 
countries.

And if we just decided to leave out all country borders..<humour>...in a 
utopic effort to re-unite the world ? </humour>

Wouldn't that be inline with the Free Map thought....?

Gert

On 23-11-2018 16:34, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
> Frederik,
>
> I suspect the "default" is what the community took the main issue 
> with.  DWG essentially declaring that there must be a single truth for 
> non-overlapping country borders is what seems to have caused all 
> this.  Simply saying that every country can define their own would 
> have averted this whole thing.
>
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 2:24 AM Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org 
> <mailto:frederik at remote.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     On 23.11.2018 01:42, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>     > One idea (perhaps this should go into a separete thread):
>
>     There already is a separate thread over on the tagging list
>     started just
>     a couple of weeks ago. I suggest that would be a good place to
>     continue
>     the discussion.
>
>     Being able to map different claims is certainly interesting, in so far
>     as they are verifiable (which surprisingly often is not the case). But
>     all that's already been mentioned over at
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/040333.html
>
>     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
>     to be. And judging from how this decision is blown out of proportion
>     ("OMG OSM SUPPORTS TERRORISTS!") I am sure that people would display
>     exactly the same outrage when discussing which one of a large set of
>     mapped claims gets the "default" flag.
>
>     >  I especially appreciate 4.2 -- the fact that this decision is
>     very bad for the data users --
>
>     I think you have misread Victor's 4.2 which essentially says that data
>     users currently have to make up their own boundaries anyway and that
>     therefore this decision does not *help* them. He does not say that
>     it is
>     good or bad, just that it does not improve an already-bad situation.
>
>     As for whether
>
>     > DWG has gone too far into the political landscape - something I
>     hope it did not intend to do.
>
>     let me quote from the DWG statement - again:
>
>     "The Data Working Group takes no stance on if Russia's control is
>     legal
>     or not, as that is not within our scope."
>
>     The DWG has simply applied a policy that has existed in OSM since
>     before
>     Crimea's annexation. That policy was written by LWG and approved
>     by the
>     OSMF board in 2013 and has been applied many, many times since and it
>     has generally worked well for OSM. It certainly can be discussed and
>     improved but that needs to be on a general level, and not tacking
>     on an
>     "Ukraine exemption" to the rule.
>
>     Bye
>     Frederik
>
>     -- 
>     Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org
>     <mailto:frederik at remote.org> ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     talk mailing list
>     talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

-- 
Independent Expert on CE marking
Harmonised Standards (HAS-) Consultant @ European Commission for RED and EMC
EMC Consultant
Electrical Safety Consultant

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20181123/0d65303f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: g_gremmen.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 408 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20181123/0d65303f/attachment.vcf>