[OSM-talk] Review of name and boundary tagging - revised and amended guidelines to address and resolve disputes

[Bert -Araali- Van Opstal]

On 13/07/2021 09:11, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> Jul 12, 2021, 16:17 by bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com:
>
>     C. if the above fail to reach a consensus, what is the fall back
>     scenario. Do we define a reference framework, like the UN or others ?
>
> No.
>
> Definite no to putting "regulations from the UN" above actual situation.
I agree, it is not what I said as to be proposed. I said resolutions 
from the UN are fall back reference frames when the OSM community fails 
to reach a consensus using our own guidelines framework.
>
> See say https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Taiwan> where UN 
> situation and
> officially recognized status clearly conflicts with an actual situation.
>
> Taiwan (Republic of China) is an independent country, it does not 
> control mainland China.
>
>     So, with your understanding of the above, please express your
>     positive intend to cooperate, engage and willingness to contribute
>     with:
>     (...)
>     4. the initial base frame as described, with UN and possible other
>     candidates as reference frames for fall back scenarios. A base
>     frame which will be accepted, adopted or abandoned.
>
>
> I express lack of willingness to accept that part. OSM is supposed to 
> map actual situation,
> not slavishly reproduce whatever was produces as outcome of political 
> process in bodies
> such as United Nations.
How do you determine the actual situation ? How unfortunate it is that 
these processes might take a long time, annoy us, but that is our human 
nature and behaviour. The ideal world, where everything co-exists in 
peace, respect and neutrality is a far dream, both in the physical as 
digital world. As I said, we should try to do better, but in the cases 
where we fail we should have a fall back reference frame. Failing to do 
so is as much harmful and gives a platform to fight these wars, with the 
ever growing restrictions and expectations from social media, soon a 
trend might appear in wiki based platforms like wikipedia. I don't 
believe any one of us, even wikipedia wants to go there. I am open to 
any solutions, but the UN is historically the only reference I can come 
up with, despite the fact that it's often a slow process, but it's not 
different from OSM. In many cases our alternative has failed, for many 
years, so it's up to us to allow conflicts and editing wars to continue 
or come up with a solution that creates peace and supports a process of 
reconciliation and consensus.
>
> Note: this does not imply that I accept/agree with other parts of the
> message that I am replying to, but this part was clearly and obviously 
> problematic.
>
Much appreciated and please participate in coming discussions and the 
proposal process.  All constructive contributions will be much needed.

Greetings,

Bert Araali

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20210713/0696f2fb/attachment.htm>