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

Bert -Araali- Van Opstal bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Thu Jul 15 16:18:49 UTC 2021


Well explained. I identified this possibility already and try to find a 
track how we can deal with that.
The best proposal I can come up with is as follows:

- a dispute arises, it escalates or is about a geographical feature that 
carries large international interests.
- we expect the local communities to resolve it, if they are not able to 
do this in an acceptable manner, guided by our good practices and 
adhering to the etiquette, we freeze the situation using the fall back 
reference frame
- however there is a larger international interest or we identify local 
communities who might not be able or willing to speak out, again we 
freeze the situation using the fall back reference frame
- so now the fall back scenario is in place. The status quo is the 
reference frame (the status quo as existing in the UN), enforced by the DWG.
- it's up to the communities to dialogue and come up with a consensus.
If the interests involve a large number of locals or are of an 
international character, we will request and include to do this in a 
civilised manner, inclusive, protecting privacy and allowing anonymity. 
The wiki with it's talk pages seems the perfect vehicle for that. Much 
more like a mediation process as referred to by Imre. The major 
difference with a regular mediation process is that it still will be in 
public and we cannot expect OSM to provide skilled and trained mediators.
If necessary one could think of moderating it by the LCCWG Moderation 
Subcommittee.
- if a consensus grows, in a single or multiple versions, a voting 
process (allowing anonymity and with preventive measures against 
cheating or vote rigging, NOT the voting we use for tagging proposals). 
This voting process needs to be fair and representative, , I am still 
working out an as simple as possible procedure for that.
- if the voting outcome is undecided or negative the whole process as 
from the fallback scenario is repeated.

Obviously, the intention is not to change any of our "Good Practices", 
in all the cases where there is no dispute the current situation works 
fine and continuous as is, without the need of a fallback reference 
scenario.

Greetings,

Bert Araali

On 14/07/2021 18:30, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>>     <mailto: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
>>>         <mailto: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.
>>
>>
>>     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.
>
> With
>
> 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)
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20210715/f741281a/attachment.htm>


More information about the talk mailing list