[OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Oleksiy Muzalyev oleksiy.muzalyev at bluewin.ch
Sun Oct 21 22:44:59 UTC 2018


Hi Martin,

Before continuing this discussion further, I would advise to read the 
amazing article "The demise of the nation state" by Rana Dasgupta 
available via this link: 
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta

The issue of national state boundaries is more profound and ubiquitous 
than it may seem at first sight. This topic is controversial and 
complicated, and Rana Dasgupta's analyses provides some good 
starting-point insights.

Best regards,
Oleksiy

On 21.10.18 16:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 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 
>> <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>>
>> *Date:* 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST
>> *To:* data at osmfoundation.org <mailto: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/20181022/2433afcb/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list