[OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

[Mateusz Konieczny]

22. Oct 2018 15:51 by 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.  




I strongly disagree, we map reality. When I map a business I map what exists there, not

what the owner claims to be existing. When I map road I map what exists not what is

supposed to exist there according to official sources.




When I map the border of a country I map line of control, not an official claim of the country.




Maybe "officially claimed border of country" is also mappable but it would not be marked as

a border.


 

> By extension, if you draw a country, you should use that country's definition.  




I also disagree as for when it comes to making maps. I see no reason why I should be

obligated by official claims by specific country. I may follow them in some cases but

it is often undesirable or harmful.


 

> If two country's definitions happen to overlap, we ought to document both.




I am not sure whatever we should map border claims.


 

>>> So when I generate a map for Russia, I have to show Crimea as part of Russia.  For Ukraine - as part of Ukraine.  Same for China and India and ...
>>
>> There are also other sources of data. For example to show proper terrain shape or to show ratings of restaurants and for many others use cases OSM is not sufficient.
>>
> The argument "it doesn't work for X, therefor we shouldn't make it work for Y" is puzzling.

No, I was just reminding that OSM is not for all and every geographical data.




I am not sure whatever border claims are one of these cases.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20181022/c2362a6a/attachment.html>