[OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 7:29 PM Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:

> Yuri Astrakhan <yuriastrakhan at gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <
> 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.
>
> Yes, we use government data to draw boundaries sometimes.  When there
> are no disputes, and the boundaries from many sources all line up, and
> mappers can see on the ground the markers and signs and it's all
> consistent, this is perfectly fine.
>
> The situation of a country claiming territory that is does not
> physically control is entirely different.
>

Not to mention that the situation of a country claiming territory that it
physically controls, but only it recognizes, is also a relatively rare
thing this decade.  Playing it conservatively in the "Russia claims Crimea
and controls it, but unilaterally and by force from Ukraine" is definitely
a situation that deserves both claims being mapped until the broader
international community does.  I believe the original complaint to be
generously asking a lot given the context of this specific dispute and
they're arguing a side one country says "yes", and literally every other
country or very close close to it) says "no".  Would be like if the US
arbitrarily steamed into the Manitoba and claimed it as a state...pretty
sure the world would see both claims and at least have serious problems
with one until the locals settled it definitively and, as the world views
it, either amicably or definitively but preferably both.  Given that Hans
Island isn't a settled issue between Canada and Denmark with literally zero
people and only speculative resources at stake, 30 years later, don't count
on Crimea getting resolved any faster given the current pace to resolve it
on the ground.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20181023/54d18559/attachment-0001.html>