Re: [OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Dec 13, 2018, 1:53 PM by ajt1...@gmail.com:

> On 11/12/2018 13:45, Manfred A. Reiter  wrote:
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> The decision of the DWG was absolutely correct  according to the 
>> rules that OSM imposed on itself. 
>>  
>>  I think the board here is opening Pandora's box. It will  
>> certainly be interesting to see how all the controversial  areas 
>> will be judged from now on. 
>>
>>
>
> Given that there will be effectively a "new board" after Saturday
>
So not only they bizarrely refused to provide any reasoning at all but also 
promised that
a new board will find justification for their actions?

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] weeklyOSM #438 2018-12-04-2018-12-10

[weeklyteam]

The weekly round-up of OSM news, issue # 438,
is now available online in English, giving as always a summary of all things 
happening in the openstreetmap world:

http://www.weeklyosm.eu/en/archives/11120/

Enjoy!

weeklyOSM? 
who: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WeeklyOSM#Available_Languages 
where?: 
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/weeklyosm-is-currently-produced-in_56718#2/8.6/108.3
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Markus]

As long as state borders need to fulfil ground truth and broad
international recognition, which are in conflict with each other, this
inevitably requires arbitrary decisions.

It seems to me that the solution that agrees the most with our
principle of ground truth is to abandon the broad international
recognition criterion and to set up independent and verifiable
criteria for states (or rather admin:level=2 boundaries).

I'd suggest to adopt the first three criteria of Article 1 of the
Montevideo Convention [1] (also known as the declarative theory of
statehood [2]), which are

  1. a permanent population,
  2. a defined territory,
  3. a government.

(I'd leave out the fourth criterion – capacity to enter into relations
with the other states – because it leaves too much room for
interpretation.)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state#Declarative_theory

Regards
Markus


On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 at 13:43, Vladimir Agafonkin  wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:52 PM Guillaume Rischard  
> wrote:
>>
>> The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no 
>> other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea, 
>> without any justification, opens Pandora’s box.
>
>
> All of these statements are misleading. If Crimea is an exception, how is the 
> ground-truth rule applied in South Osetia and Abkhazia, both of which are 
> included in the Georgia boundary which has absolutely no control over those 
> territories (de-facto controlled by Russia)? Why is Transnistria included in 
> the boundaries of Moldova? Why does the Cyprus boundary include a large area 
> fully controlled by Turkey? What police and tax authority is there in large 
> areas of Iran and Iraq controlled by ISIS, and why are these areas still 
> included in the respective countries?
>
> The only major difference in those cases compared to Crimea is that applying 
> the ground-truth rule there would require mapping respective areas as 
> independent countries. But — big surprise! — OSM community by convention 
> limits the list of countries to those recognized by the UN, because, as it 
> turns out, a country is a political entity after all. How ironic is that?
>
> In practice, OSM never fully adhered to the ground truth rule when it comes 
> to country boundaries, but at least the policy was vague enough to make 
> arbitrary decisions, with either "ground truth" or "widely internationally 
> recognized" bit taking precedence depending on how the DWG members feel about 
> the world on a particular day. Pretending OSM is out of politics when solving 
> an inherently political issue does not help, because then you take a 
> political side implicitly (becoming a welcome tool of Russian regime 
> propaganda in this case).
>
> There are reasonable and possible alternatives, such as this in-progress 
> disputed boundaries proposal, but due to the complexity and emotional charge 
> of the issue, fleshing them out to a practical consensus will take a 
> considerable time. Until such a common ground is found, the most practical 
> thing you can do is to revert to a balance point that prevents never-ending 
> edit wars and worked well in practice for the last 5 years. It's unfortunate 
> that this issue wasn't taken seriously in that period, but hopefully this 
> crisis, however damaging, will facilitate coming to a universal solution soon.

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[OSM-talk] Tag:barrier=kerb

[Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com]

I see something (new?) which I haven't seen before. Small white arrows with the tag:barrier=kerb when editing with ID. What do the arrows indicate? I don't see a reference on the wiki.Thanks :)www.theaveragenomad.com

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:barrier=kerb

[Bryan Housel]

The arrows indicate the “down” direction alongside certain kinds of ways.
For example, cliffs, coastlines, retaining walls, kerbs, guard rails, 
embankments.

If the arrows are pointing to the “up” side instead of the “down” side, you can 
reverse the way.

Thanks, Bryan



> On Dec 14, 2018, at 10:55 AM, Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com 
>  wrote:
> 
> I see something (new?) which I haven't seen before. Small white arrows with 
> the tag:barrier=kerb when editing with ID. What do the arrows indicate? I 
> don't see a reference on the wiki.
> 
> Thanks :)
> 
> www.theaveragenomad.com 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org 
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk 
> 
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:barrier=kerb

[Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com]

Thanks, Bryan :)-Original Message-
From: Bryan Housel 
Sent: Dec 14, 2018 10:06 AM
To: "Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com" 
Cc: osm-talk 
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:barrier=kerb

The arrows indicate the “down” direction alongside certain kinds of ways.For example, cliffs, coastlines, retaining walls, kerbs, guard rails, embankments.If the arrows are pointing to the “up” side instead of the “down” side, you can reverse the way.Thanks, BryanOn Dec 14, 2018, at 10:55 AM, Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com  wrote:I see something (new?) which I haven't seen before. Small white arrows with the tag:barrier=kerb when editing with ID. What do the arrows indicate? I don't see a reference on the wiki.Thanks :)www.theaveragenomad.com___talk mailing listtalk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talkwww.theaveragenomad.com

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:barrier=kerb

[Joel H.]

This was something I also found confusing, I have updated the wiki page
with an image that shows how it works.

On 15/12/18 2:09 am, Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com wrote:
> Thanks, Bryan :)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bryan Housel
> Sent: Dec 14, 2018 10:06 AM
> To: "Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com"
> Cc: osm-talk
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:barrier=kerb
>
> The arrows indicate the “down” direction alongside certain kinds
> of ways.
> For example, cliffs, coastlines, retaining walls, kerbs, guard
> rails, embankments.
>
> If the arrows are pointing to the “up” side instead of the “down”
> side, you can reverse the way.
>
> Thanks, Bryan
>
>
>
>> On Dec 14, 2018, at 10:55 AM, Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com
>>  > > wrote:
>>
>> I see something (new?) which I haven't seen before. Small white
>> arrows with the tag:barrier=kerb when editing with ID. What do
>> the arrows indicate? I don't see a reference on the wiki.
>>
>> Thanks :)
>>
>> www.theaveragenomad.com 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org 
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
> www.theaveragenomad.com
>
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:barrier=kerb

[Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com]

Cheers :)-Original Message-
From: "Joel H." 
Sent: Dec 14, 2018 7:07 PM
To: talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:barrier=kerb


  

  
  
This was something I also found confusing, I have updated the
  wiki page with an image that shows how it works.

On 15/12/18 2:09 am, Jack Armstrong
  dan...@sprynet.com wrote:


  
  
  Thanks, Bryan :)

-Original
  Message-
  
  From: Bryan Housel 

Sent: Dec 14, 2018 10:06 AM

To: "Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com" 
  
  Cc: osm-talk 

Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tag:barrier=kerb


The
arrows indicate the “down” direction alongside
certain kinds of ways.
For example, cliffs, coastlines, retaining walls,
kerbs, guard rails, embankments.

If the arrows are pointing to the “up” side instead
of the “down” side, you can reverse the way.


Thanks, Bryan
  
  
  
  

  
On Dec 14, 2018, at 10:55 AM,
  Jack Armstrong dan...@sprynet.com
  
  wrote:


  I see something (new?) which I
haven't seen before. Small white arrows
with the tag:barrier=kerb when
editing with ID. What do the arrows
indicate? I don't see a reference on the
wiki.


Thanks
  :)

  www.theaveragenomad.com
  
  

  
  ___
  talk
mailing list
  talk@openstreetmap.org
  https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
  


  

  

www.theaveragenomad.com


  
  
  
  ___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


  

www.theaveragenomad.com

___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk