[OSM-talk] Review of name and boundary tagging - revised and amended guidelines to address and resolve disputes
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Wed Jul 14 15:30:00 UTC 2021
Jul 14, 2021, 13:40 by bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com:
> On 13/07/2021 16:47, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2021 at 9:38 AM Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <>> bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com>> > wrote:
>>> 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 ?
>>>> 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.
>> I do not think that this is a workable solution. There are many cases where a local community is not in agreement with international organizations, and this would effectively be choosing a winner based on fiat rather than doing the more difficult but necessary work of achieving a compromise that all sides can live with.
> I agree that it's not desirable. Again, it's a fall back scenario in case local communities cannot agree and escalate it with editing wars.
With rule "UN solution will be applied if situation escalates" encourages side that wants to do
matching change encourages them to escalate and never agree.
group A: peak is commonly named Foobar
group B: peak is commonly named Barfoo
UN: peak name is Foobar
group A is encouraged to escalate and never agree, as in such case their preference
will be applied anyway.
(replacing UN with any other authority will not change this problem)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk