[OSM-talk] Persian/Arabian Gulf Tagging

[Bert -Araali- Van Opstal]

@Abdullah Abdulrhman

All the references you have given in your last mail on this list are 
unilateral when it comes to the use of "Arabic Gulf". Bilateral 
communication and treaties only refer to the use of "Arabian Gulf" when 
only GCC members or Arabic allies of the GCC are involved. This is 
further supported by other references found on the same websites, where 
Iran is involved or another country who which to remain neutral, both 
the term "Arabian Gulf" and "Persian Gulf" are avoided.

Don't question peoples "good faith" or your personal opinions or 
conclusions about my intentions.

@Saeed Hubaishan

I apologise for the confusion that may have arisen from the informal 
term "international waters". It is true, after studying expert and 
authoritative resources there are bilateral agreements concerning the 
exact borders of the EEZ's and the continental shelf, high seas of the 
areas, it might be subject to misinterpretations, as I mistakenly did. 
Lessons learned: in sensitive matters don't use an informal term as 
"International waters".

Don't question peoples "good faith" or your personal opinions or 
conclusions about my intentions.

@Li Yaqo

> Solution 1:
> Keep the tags without changing.
> (This means we keep the tags in the stable version before the start of 
> the vandalism chaos)
> The tags will stay like this:
> ______________________
> Name= الخليج العربي
> Alt_name= خليج فارس
> Name:en= Persian Gulf
> Name:ar= الخليج العربي
> Name:fa= خليج فارس
> ______________________
> Pros: Keep the things as is the stable version.
> Cons: This might not end the vandalism edits from the nationalist 
> vandals in the Arab countries, and there will probably be even more 
> vandalism as an act of revenge if we go with this option, but it's an if.
The current relation has never been in a stable situation. Other nodes 
and relations existed before this one, with the same issues and disputes 
appearing after a limited time. Numerous threads, messages in the help 
forum etc... exist from before 2019 when this relation was created.
Reflecting this solution as "a stable version" is not correct. This 
solution you propose was one that aggravated and escalated the incident.
>
>
> Solution 2:
> Change the 'name tag to have both languages at the same time
> (This means we change only the 'name' tag by adding the Iranian name 
> alongside the already existing one)
>
> The tags will be like this:
> ______________________
> Name= الخليج العربي / خليج فارس
> Name:en= Persian Gulf
> Name:ar= الخليج العربي
> Name:fa= خليج فارس
> ______________________
> Pros: This will definitely stop the vandalism edits when finally the 
> Iranian name is in the general name tag. This solution was tested 
> before in the Caspian Sea, and it worked when the Iranian name was in 
> with the other languages in the 'name' tag.
> Cons: I don't see any.
name:ar being Arabian Gulf is not the equivalent term in Arabic for the 
name tag Persian Gulf. It creates confusion as the equivalent Arabic 
term in the name tag is already listed. It goes against the principle 
that we also respect different local opinions, both in OSM and in the 
UN, in expressing used local names tags and respect to other 
communities. It is as much biased as other solutions proposed so far and 
not compliant to the OSM tagging guidelines. Unfortunately our 
guidelines don't address these issues specifically, so we as a community 
need to address this and improve it with a solution that as much as 
possible fits all.
>
> There was an opinion that was discussed which is removing the 'name' 
> tag entirely. This is not a solution, this option was chosen and 
> tested before in many areas and failed in almost every single one of 
> them, the Mediterranean Sea for example. Removing the 'name' tag will 
> conclude by adding it again by another user who does not know about 
> this whole problem and vandalism issue, and this will definitely start 
> the vandalism campaign again.
Again, as you did before, you judge other users knowledge without 
referring to factual evidence. It's against the "good faith" principle 
which we support in our community.


Regards,


Bert Araali

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20210711/02c5bd42/attachment.htm>