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

Pavlo Dudka pavlo.dudka at gmail.com
Sat Nov 24 15:32:39 UTC 2018


>> it is widely internationally recognised that Russia now controls Crimea.

When we talk about boundary recognition the meaning is completely different.
The UK Government’s position on Crimea
<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/overseas-business-risk-ukraine/overseas-business-risk-ukraine--2>
: Both the G7 and EU have affirmed their condemnation, and *non-recognition,
of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea* and we are implementing a strict
policy of non-recognition with respect to Crimea/Sevastapol, in line with
UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262

Doing business in Crimea
<https://www.gov.uk/government/news/doing-business-in-russia-and-ukraine-sanctions-latest>
The UK government maintain *a strict policy of non-recognition *with
respect to Crimea / Sevastopol, in line with UN General Assembly Resolution
68/262. UK businesses should be mindful of the increased commercial risks
created by this situation.
...
These measures imposed on EU citizens and businesses:
call on international financial institutions to *refrain from financing any
projects that explicitly or implicitly recognise the illegal annexation of
Crimea and Sevastopol *

сб, 24 лист. 2018 о 16:13 Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> пише:

> On 23/11/2018 21:03, Tomas Straupis wrote:
>
>
>   Ok. So do I understand OSMF position is this:
>
> All the answers here are "my personal understanding of OSM's collective
> position, based on many years to and fro in mailing lists, wiki pages, etc.
> etc.".  Some of the questions below are technical, some are political, some
> have implications for how data is stored and some have implications for how
> data is represented (and it's important to disconnect those last two).
> Also, OSM is a very broad church and some people have very different views
> about what we should record and how we should record it.
>
>
>   1. There are no technical problems with having international
> boundaries overlapping and representing official position of involved
> countries.
>
> There are technical problems, in that things may be "double counted" - the
> "total number of X in the world" will be higher if we count by overlapping
> countries.  However, often we're choosing the "least worst option" - the
> one with fewest problems (technical and political), not the one with none.
>
>
>   2. International boundaries DO sometimes overlap.
>
>
> I'm not actually aware of a situation where countries have said "this bit
> belongs equally to both of us" (I'd be interested to hear of any examples,
> actually), though there are plenty of places where they say "I think it
> belongs to me, and you think it belongs to you, but let's work together and
> manage it jointly".
>
>
>   3. OSMF is aware that overlapping boundaries would have satisfied
> more users (especially LOCAL users).
>
> There's a clear split here between the views of people from Ukraine (and
> other countries closer to Russia's borders) and mappers from elsewhere.
> The former are saying "Ukraine was invaded and part was taken away by
> force; maps should show it as part of Ukraine because that act was not
> legal according to International law".  The latter are saying "we have
> always mapped what's on the ground, regardless of the legal situation".
>
> Essentially it's a political decision what the admin_level=2 boundaries in
> OSM should reflect.  There's no one answer that will please everyone - if
> we said that admin_level=2 boundaries should show "the extent that each
> country thinks that it should have regardless of actual control on the
> ground" then we'd have to invent another boundary type for "actual borders"
> that did tell people where they were crossing a patrolled frontier.
>
> Conversely, I personally don't think that there's a reason (subject to
> verifiability, which isn't a problem here) why claims such as this
> shouldn't be in OSM (so that people can make maps from them), just as long
> as people can't confuse them with the areas that particular countries
> actually control.  Western Sahara is an example -
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2559126 .  There was a discussion
> (with mappers who'd been active in the area and in the OSM boundaries
> forum) that decided that Morocco should be in OSM as the area that it
> controls, and the SADR area as the area outside that.  According to the UN,
> Western Sahara should be a country, and if someone wants to create a map
> based on OSM data that shows the boundary of Western Sahara, they can,
> because that data is in OSM.
>
> It's important to remember this last point - anyone can, and is encouraged
> to, make their own maps from OSM data.  What you see in the "standard
> style" at openstreetmap.org is just one possible rendering of many.  If
> you want to render OSM data without boundaries and then overlay a set of
> boundaries on it, you can (see
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/47007 for a worked
> example).  If you want to have different boundaries displayed for different
> URLs or different audiences, you can do that too (and many consumers of OSM
> data do exactly that).
>
> There are other technical options about how best to show de jure and de
> facto boundaries.  As another example have a look at
> https://www.mapquest.com/ and browse to Western Sahara - there are at
> least 3 different styles of boundaries shown there that represent de facto
> and de jure country boundaries.  Those are technical decisions made by the
> people making those maps (in this case Mapbox, based on OSM data).
>
>
>   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".
>
> Frankly you're really not helping your argument by cherry-picking pieces
> of text from
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf
> like that.   For the avoidance of doubt the full sentence from which you
> have quoted part of is:
>
> *"Currently, 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." *
>
> It seems to me that it's the application of exactly that principle to the
> Russia/Ukraine border that you're objecting to. - it is widely
> internationally recognised that Russia now controls Crimea.  By all means
> lobby the developers of maps based on OSM data about how they show
> particular countries to particular audiences, and ensure that (where
> verifiable) data is contained within OSM to allow those maps to be made,
> but please don't say that this decision went against the letter or the
> spirit of that policy.  Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions - as I
> said near the top of this email, often we're choosing the "least worst
> option" of all of the available ones.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy Townsend (from the Data Working Group, but written in a personal
> capacity)
>
> PS: If anyone would like any help with any of the technical stuff (setting
> up a server, multiple sets of boundaries for multiple groups of users,
> different languages) then please do just ask (
> https://help.openstreetmap.org is a good place to start).  There are lots
> of options and lots of resources out there, and despite all the list, diary
> and forum posts I don't think I've seen anyone ask.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181124/1a0d24d5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the talk mailing list