[OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

[Mateusz Konieczny]

22. Oct 2018 16:17 by dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>:


> Am Mo., 22. Okt. 2018 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Yuri Astrakhan <> yuriastrakhan at gmail.com <mailto:yuriastrakhan at gmail.com>> >:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <>> matkoniecz at tutanota.com <mailto:matkoniecz at tutanota.com>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>           
>>>> I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two relations will overlap.
>>>
>>> That is absurd and conflict with OSM rule to map what exists. 
>>>
>>>
>> On the contrary, it actually matches OSM rules better than deciding yourself.  When drawing a city outline, you go to that city's government, and get the geoshape from them. By extension, if you draw a country, you should use that country's definition.  If two country's definitions happen to overlap, we ought to document both.
>
>
> In principle I agree it would be desirable to keep records of "all" claims for a territory, (I can imagine there will be some more rules required, because there are even small groups and individuals claiming authority over territories with very low possibility to be recognized by anyone else, and we might want to exclude those "trolls"). But this should not mean that we do not keep information about who actually controls the territory, and who has claims on it but does not control it. Simply adding a territory to 2 countries at the same time can't be the solution.




I am not fundamentally opposed to adding various claims to OSM (though I am not

supporting it either).




But in cases where there is clear who controls given territory main border then 


main administrative boundary should be applied to line of control. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20181022/3e230cdc/attachment.html>