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

[Pavlo Dudka]

boundary=administrative can't be "IRRESPECTIVE OF WIDE INTERNATIONAL
RECOGNITION" by definition. Please check it on OSM wiki
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:boundary%3Dadministrative&oldid=1697927>:
"An administrative boundary. Subdivisions of
areas/territories/jurisdictions recognised by governments or other
organisations for administrative purposes."
OSMF statement also says "we record one set that, in OpenStreetMap
contributor opinion, is most widely internationally recognised and best
meets realities on the ground, generally meaning physical control.". The
first sentence also says to take international recognition into account,
while second part make the whole statement self-contradictory.

пт, 23 лист. 2018 о 23:06 Tomas Straupis <tomasstraupis at gmail.com> пише:

> 2018-11-23, pn, 18:57 Andy Townsend rašė:
> > Where that best matches the situation on the ground about who has
> > control, yes.
>
>   Ok. So do I understand OSMF position is this:
>
>   1. There are no technical problems with having international
> boundaries overlapping and representing official position of involved
> countries.
>   2. International boundaries DO sometimes overlap.
>   3. OSMF is aware that overlapping boundaries would have satisfied
> more users (especially LOCAL users).
>   4. Precedence is taken by "most widely internationally recognised
> and best meets realities on the ground" where only second part is
> actually important, so this sentence should be changed to "best meets
> realities on the ground IRRESPECTIVE OF WIDE INTERNATIONAL
> RECOGNITION".
>
>   Is this correct?
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20181124/85dbd83f/attachment.html>