[OSM-talk] Review of name and boundary tagging - revised and amended guidelines to address and resolve disputes
frederik at remote.org
Sun Jul 11 22:23:25 UTC 2021
On 7/11/21 17:14, Bert -Araali- Van Opstal wrote:
> 1. If you support the approach as expressed feel free to express it.
I am not sure I understand your suggested process. It sounds like "if
you agree, please say so, if you don't agree, please remain silent" ;)
I object to the suggested approach as well as to the suggested proposal.
I object to the suggested *approach* because any change to
should be adopted by the OSMF board who will take into account more
factors than just the number of votes on the wiki.
I object to the suggested *proposal* because of the importance given to
"UN and/or the IHO and international court decisions". I believe that
implementing such a rule would re-ignite a lot of situations where we
currently enjoy peace and compromise in OSM (think Israel, Crimea) and
where what we do in OSM is actually closer to "real and useful" than
what the official UN doctrine is. Implementing a policy that says "if
there's a conflict we'll go with the UN" will lead those who stand to
gain from a change, to provoke such conflicts on purpose. The same is
true for the IHO whose rules are often quite far off from reality e.g.
in the Rio de la Plata case.
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the talk