[OSM-talk] Review of name and boundary tagging - revised and amended guidelines to address and resolve disputes
pella.samu at gmail.com
Wed Jul 14 20:32:19 UTC 2021
> Again, it's a fall back scenario in case local communities cannot agree
and escalate it with editing wars.
> Of course, local communities disagree with international organisations.
IMHO: Why not focus on the "root cause" ---> We can't support multiple
points of view (worldview) yet
( example: https://github.com/nvkelso/natural-earth-vector/issues/301 )
For solving the community problems: the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation process is better because it has a
The "UN" fallback scenario is a ~ Zero-Sum approach .. with winners
And we need to think about the "Second-order effect": If the "looser"
community does not accept the solution; We have to prepare some community
At worst, there will be 3 similar but incompatible community geodatabase in
*"Second Order Effect refers to the idea that every action has a
consequence, and each consequence has a subsequent consequence. In other
words, this means that a single decision can initiate a series of
cause-and-effects, something which we might not have knowledge or control
So let's focus on:
- Localized Map rendering ->
Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com> ezt írta
(időpont: 2021. júl. 14., Sze, 13:47):
> 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. Of
> course, local communities disagree with international organisations. In my
> proposal I will include some suggestions how dialogue and a process to
> consensus between local communities could be improved, rather then starting
> editing wars and escalating them to other map features.It shouldn't be a
> desired permanent situation though, if through other processes a consensus
> is reached of course as a community we will allow the name tag to reflect
> local use, as intended and guided in our wiki.
> Leaving the name field empty or freezing it on a biased status is, I
> believe not favoured by the majority. Is not going to stop the wars which,
> at the same time undermine the dialogue which might be ongoing in a search
> for consensus. But we are open to alternative suggestions of course.
> Bert Araali
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk