[OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

[Imre Samu]

> When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the
Ucraine in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199

And part of Russia:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60189#map=6/45.014/33.873&layers=C

Imre

Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt.
21., V, 15:15):

> Dear all,
>
> we all know how sensible the topic of disputed boundaries can be (they are
> not necessarily a big problem, many boundary disputes like between Italy
> and France about the summit of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco, have little
> bearing on the actual life of people).
>
> Therefore we can all be satisfied there is clear guidance from the board
> how to deal with this: the local situation determines how we map, and the
> OSMF is explicit here: “National borders are particularly sensitive.
> 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.”
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.
> <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf>
> pdf
>
> When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine
> in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199
>
> As many might know, the current boundary situation for Crimea was frozen 4
> years ago “for a short time” by the DWG and so I asked them about their
> current position 2 months ago, and after I got no reply, tried to remind
> them 5 weeks ago, but have not yet gotten any reply, so I am now opening
> this thread here.
>
> IMHO, for consistency and credibility, we should either recognize that
> Russia is actually controlling Crimea, or we should update the disputed
> borders information. As I believe the general concept of ground truth for
> admin boundaries was a good idea, I would tend to the former.
>
> I also believe the actual situation has already been ignored for too long.
> When the thing is still dynamic or/and we’re in the middle of a conflict it
> can be wise to step back and see for some time how things are evolving, but
> 4 years are a lot of time, something like one year would seem more
> reasonable.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers, Martin
>
> sent from a phone
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From:* Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> *Date:* 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST
> *To:* data at osmfoundation.org
> *Subject:* *DWG policy on Crimea*
>
>
> Dear members of the DWG,
>
> as of this question in the help forum:
>
>
> https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65436/what-is-the-current-position-of-the-dataworkinggroup-on-crimea
>
>
> I kindly invite you to reconsider and eventually update your position on
> the situation in Crimea.
>
> As you have stated in 2014, this should not be the long term way to deal
> with the situation, and short term is probably coming to an end. There is
> clear guidance by the OSMF board how to deal with disputed boundaries (as
> the situation seems to be more stable than some would have liked).
>
> My motivation is not promoting the Russian point of view, but to act
> predictably and consistent wrt sensible topics.
>
> Thank you,
> cheers,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181021/81d03dda/attachment-0001.html>