Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
Feb 6, 2020, 14:59 by pella.s...@gmail.com: > Without "empathy" - we can map> "nesting locations of vulnerable species"> > - because of the cold logic of the "> on the ground rule" > I am OK with not mapping some objects (private features, rare birds, places of worship where given religion is persecuted etc) But I see no good reason to pretend that Russian invasion was not successful, PS: Yes, the invasion was worrying, wrong, problematic and Russian government is filled with abhorrent evil people - especially on the top. It is not changing that they were clearly successful in the invasion. I fully support applying on the ground rule here. OSM is not mapping world as it should be, it is mapping it as it exists. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
I also support the DWG's decision. It is bad policy for the board to overrule the Data Working Group for political reasons, and in this case it is clear that the situation on the ground has changed since 2014. While I am opposed to Russia's actions, the data in Openstreetmap should represent reality, rather than what we might prefer to be true. - Joseph Eisenberg ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
I see a linguistic problem … and people. On 07/02/2020 05:27, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote: OSM is not mapping world as it should be, it is mapping it as it exists. Russia has successfully invaded Crimea and considers it part of Russia. but there still are Ukrainians living there, I suppose. people who speak a marginally different language with a couple of differences in the alphabet. (according to them, a completely different language.) so one thing is the border, one other thing is toponyms. a much more serious example of this is the Golan Heights. try to find a name in the area which shows there's Syrians living there! which way does OSM manage to show impartiality? or make a serious attempt at it? MF ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
Hello Some important points here: 1. On the ground rule has a number of different interpretations, interpretation of "we check everything on the ground literally" is an illusion of confirmation bias, especially when we talk about non physical objects such as borders. Anybody can look at the database and you'll see that absolute majority of such data is taken from legal documents, other maps (including ortophotographic maps), not from observations "on the ground". Therefore on the ground rule has NEVER EXISTED, does not exist now and will never exist because it is simply impractical. Therefore - FALSE BASE. 2. OSMF is a SUPPORTING organisation, it has no authority to make decisions on what to map and how. Therefore - NO AUTHORITY. 3. Standing on the side of Moscow on this issue will AGAIN put OpenStreetMap in the target of some EU, US and Worldwide organisations. Therefore - LEGAL/FINANCIAL RISK. -- Tomas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
sent from a phone > Il giorno 7 feb 2020, alle ore 14:13, Tomas Straupis > ha scritto: > > Anybody can look at the database and > you'll see that absolute majority of such data is taken from legal > documents, other maps (including ortophotographic maps), not from > observations "on the ground". Therefore on the ground rule has NEVER > EXISTED, does not exist now and will never exist because it is simply > impractical. Therefore - FALSE BASE. the on the ground rule was set up to resolve difficult situations. While we would certainly prefer to have all borders surveyed on the ground, it isn’t currently the situation. Still, if there is a question about a specific thing, the situation on the ground is used to resolve it. It’s neither a contradiction, nor is it a false base. > > 2. OSMF is a SUPPORTING organisation, it has no authority to make > decisions on what to map and how. Therefore - NO AUTHORITY. I agree with this, to some point. It is their rules. Ultimately the OpenStreetMap-Foundation is legally responsible for what they publish, so there might be situations where they will have to weigh different arguments and make a decision. > > 3. Standing on the side of Moscow on this issue will AGAIN put > OpenStreetMap in the target of some EU, US and Worldwide > organisations. Therefore - LEGAL/FINANCIAL RISK. it’s not about standing on the side of someone specific, it’s a general question of adhering to one’s own policy. I don’t buy the legal/financial risk issue, but if it was real, I believe we would have to take the risk, in favor of the map. Please also note that the DWG statement has a paragraph which asks to map the Ukraine-Crimea border as disputed. Cheers Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
2020-02-07, pn, 16:18 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė: > the on the ground rule was set up to resolve difficult situations. So this rule is just for some specific small case(s) where standard (legal) base is not suitable for somebody? This rule (its new interpretation) was invented by a few without any alignment on how OSM actually works. > It’s neither a contradiction, nor is it a false base. It is a false base because if we would say that Crimea decision is based on wide-spread and old OSM principle of X - then in would be understandable. But X is not a wide-spread, it is even almost non existent. So it is pointless, you can simply say "I decided this way just because". > it’s not about standing on the side of someone specific, it’s a general > question of adhering to one’s own policy. There is no such policy as "ground truth" (interpretation used in Crimea case) in real life (in real database or wide-spread practice of how we map). It is a smoke screen and there is no point of "defending" non-existant thing and raise this issue again as I'm totally sure it will raise the same havoc it did last time. And "neutral" is current decision, because it supports both sides - Ukraine and Moscow - equally. -- Tomas ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
Feb 7, 2020, 14:09 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 1. On the ground rule has a number of different interpretations > Maybe. Is any of this interpretations leading to conclusion that Ukraine is de facto controlling Crimea? > interpretation of "we check everything on the ground literally" is an > illusion of confirmation bias > Noone claims that. Noticeable part of mapping is using aerial images imports. > Anybody can look at the database and > you'll see that absolute majority of such data is taken from legal > documents, other maps (including ortophotographic maps), not from > observations "on the ground". > In many cases it is not necessary to apply it - it is used where multiple sources conflict. > Therefore on the ground rule has NEVER > EXISTED > WAT? Are you claiming that on the ground rule is my hallucination? It certainly existed. > , does not exist now and will never exist because it is simply > impractical. Therefore - FALSE BASE. > In many cases it is not necessary to apply it - it is used where multiple sources conflict. > 2. OSMF is a SUPPORTING organisation, it has no authority to make > decisions on what to map and how. Therefore - NO AUTHORITY. > In such case discussing on mailing list is a perfect place to do this. > 3. Standing on the side of Moscow on this issue will AGAIN put > OpenStreetMap in the target of some EU, US and Worldwide > organisations. Therefore - LEGAL/FINANCIAL RISK. > [citation needed] What kind of risk can be expected by specifying true fact that invasion succeed and Russia is controlling Crimea? Do you propose to map Tibet as independent country, delete Auschwitz concentration camps from the map, etc because it is an evidence that some evil things happened? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
2020-02-07, pn, 17:18 Mateusz Konieczny via talk rašė: >> 1. On the ground rule has a number of different interpretations > Maybe. Is any of this interpretations leading to conclusion that Ukraine is > de facto controlling Crimea? No, why should they? Ground rule (interpretations I know about) have nothing in common with this case (except stating that mapping borders is an exception). >> Therefore on the ground rule has NEVER >> EXISTED > WAT? Are you claiming that on the ground rule is my > hallucination? It certainly existed. Ground rule interpretation you're talking about has never existed. Otherwise why is it not visible in the data? > What kind of risk can be expected by specifying true fact > that invasion succeed and Russia is controlling Crimea? Go through the posts of last attempt and you will get the info. Succeeded is when everybody (or at least almost everybody) recognises the anschluss. > Do you propose to map Tibet as independent country, Well... Yes :-D China communist party does not like OSM anyway. Note, here situation is quite different from Crimea, unfortunately almost all nations do recognise that Tibet is currently controlled by China since the occupation in 1950. > delete Auschwitz concentration camps from the map, > etc because it is an evidence that some evil things happened? Sooo... you're proposing to map Crimea as belonging to Moscow and add a name "Occupied Ukrainian Crimea"? ;-) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Panorama Mapping Party with TrekView - May 23 - Ashurst, New Forest, UK
Hello everyone, As some of you may know I am developing OpenTrailView (https://opentrailview.org), a pure 100% FOSS StreetView-like application for off-road routes such as hiking trails which uses OpenStreetMap data to auto-connect the panoramas together. Recently I've been working with Trek View (trekview.org), an organisation which aims to capture panoramas of the natural world. In their words: TrekView is a not-for-profit organisation using the power of panoramic photography to help educate and protect against further destruction of our beautiful planet. In 2020, they're launching Trekker Camp. Think virtual field trips. Trekker Camp will design and deliver immersive learning experiences to give students (7-11) the necessary understanding and skills to tackle the world's most pressing issues, from ocean health to climate change. TrekView loan 360 camera packs (using the GoPro Fusion) to allow people to capture imagery of the natural world, from off-road routes including hiking routes and rivers. As well as Google Street View, TrekView's software now allows contributors to upload to OpenTrailView. On to the most important aspect of this post. On May 23rd, and inspired by OSM mapping parties, we're organising a Panorama Mapping Party at Ashurst, New Forest, Hampshire, UK, with the aim of intensively capturing panoramic imagery of the paths and trails in the area which will then be uploaded to OpenTrailView. As OSM coverage in the area is exceptionally good, this should then result in the creation of extensive walk-through tours of the area. The form will be similar to mapping parties. The plan is to meet at 11:00 (there's a train which arrives from London at the local station, Ashurst New Forest, at around 10:45), plan, capture imagery and then get together in the pub afterwards. More details (with OSM map showing location): https://www.trekview.org/blog/2020/pano-party-new-forest-uk-may-23-2020/ So if you're interested in 360 photography and OSM, then do come along! 360 camera packs will be available to borrow and use on the day, or if you have your own device, please bring it along. Thanks, Nick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
Hi,
I don't want to discuss this issue in detail but the on-the-ground rule
is an important cornerstone of what we do in OSM. If anyone wants to use
the Crimea situation (and any possible exceptions made from the OTG rule
because of it) to get rid of the OTG rule, or if anyone because of
political reasons wants to argue away the OTG rule ("has never existed"
etc.etc.) then I would fiercely oppose that.
Whatever your feelings are regarding Russia and Crimea (I notice that
Tomas hails from a country sandwiched between Russia and a Russian
exclave where being illegally occupied by Russia is a realistic fear,
whereas Martin happily fans the flames from a safe distance of over
2,000km away from the nearest Russian tank) - don't sacrifice the OTG rule.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
Note, that I'm opposing OTG rule application to non-physical objects as that is philosophically impossible as well as too unpracticall. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
There's two different concepts at play, that OSM does not currently tag well when in conflict. There's national sovereignty, which is a political concept which in large part depends on international recognition. And there's de facto control, which could result from military actions. For most of the world, these two are in sync. In Crimea, they are not, and there is a dispute. There are so many varieties of disputed territories in the world, it's hard to come up with a system that works for every single situation. And tagging structures for disputes could certainly get complicated. However, I believe that the OSM community could come up with something that works well enough for Crimea, that it would be broadly agreed that the situation is represented accurately. That tagging may not work for every single dispute in the world, but the tags could evolve as well as they are implemented in practice. -Mikel On Friday, February 7, 2020, 01:38:23 PM EST, Tomas Straupis wrote: Note, that I'm opposing OTG rule application to non-physical objects as that is philosophically impossible as well as too unpracticall. ___ 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] Crimea situation - on the ground
Without touching the Crimea specifically, I'd like to chime in that "on-the-ground" (OTG) is a good rule, but in reality it must be approached more like a goal to be achieved where it can be, as we must acknowledge that realistically, this rule both cannot be and is not applied everywhere under all circumstances. That is the simple truth and OSM should not pretend otherwise. Maybe we need to tighten up our language about how we define OTG to better acknowledge this, clearly and explicitly. A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which frequently do not exist "on the ground," but our map data would be remiss if it excluded these. So we do our best to include boundaries even as they are not on-the-ground, but exist in both de pure and de facto ways in the real world, so OSM expresses them. Yes, when boundaries are disputed, this is difficult: there is no way around that and it isn't unique to OSM. I like Mikel's recent suggestion positing that OSM can better develop tagging that accommodates a wide array of disputes, as we do have plastic tagging and it can evolve well. Other examples include large bodies of water and mountain ranges. I've lived on the Pacific coast most of my life and been to dozens of beaches, but never once on any beach have I seen a sign which reads "Pacific Ocean." Same with no signs at the edge of or in the middle of "Rocky Mountains" or "The Alps." (I've been, and I haven't seen). Yet, OSM maps oceans and mountain ranges. How do we know their names without anything on the ground? It's a tricky question which usually starts with some hand-waving (especially for enormous, major-chunk-of-planet-sized entities like oceans), and progresses to "well, everybody simply KNOWS that's the Pacific Ocean..." and we are faced with OTG and an inherent contradiction of what we should do, then we do it anyway. (Name something without having a solid OTG reality). To a lesser (weaker) extent, OTG flexibility might also apply to newly developed routes (bicycle routes are a good example) as these may not be signed (or well signed), yet a government (whether local, state or national) expresses these as real (on a public map — just as with a boundary) and poorly signs or doesn't sign them at all in the real world. OSM uses "unsigned_ref" to denote these, but it's a fuzzy semantic that doesn't have wide agreement or even consensus. I have seen the opinion that these shouldn't be in OSM at all, which seems a shame for things which many local users (of a bike route decreed by a government, for example) agree do "exist," yet there isn't any OTG evidence for this. While one tenet of OSM is "don't copy from other maps," when the only evidence that something exists is ONLY from a PUBLIC map (yielding us ODbL permission), we have to reconcile that with OTG. Today, we don't do that very well. So, rather than being fully enthusiastic about the absolute application of OTG (we simply can't), let's realize that it is a good guideline which should be followed where it can, yet it must include some flexibility which allows for exceptions. I haven't seen that said (here, yet, perhaps it is elsewhere) and I believe it is important to be explicit about it. SteveA California ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Crimea situation - on the ground
Godo point SteveA. If I had it to do over again, when I developed this in 2007 for our first edit war over city names in Northern Cyprus, I would have name this the "On the Ground **Guideline**" rather Rule. * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron On Friday, February 7, 2020, 02:15:11 PM EST, stevea wrote: Without touching the Crimea specifically, I'd like to chime in that "on-the-ground" (OTG) is a good rule, but in reality it must be approached more like a goal to be achieved where it can be, as we must acknowledge that realistically, this rule both cannot be and is not applied everywhere under all circumstances. That is the simple truth and OSM should not pretend otherwise. Maybe we need to tighten up our language about how we define OTG to better acknowledge this, clearly and explicitly. A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which frequently do not exist "on the ground," but our map data would be remiss if it excluded these. So we do our best to include boundaries even as they are not on-the-ground, but exist in both de pure and de facto ways in the real world, so OSM expresses them. Yes, when boundaries are disputed, this is difficult: there is no way around that and it isn't unique to OSM. I like Mikel's recent suggestion positing that OSM can better develop tagging that accommodates a wide array of disputes, as we do have plastic tagging and it can evolve well. Other examples include large bodies of water and mountain ranges. I've lived on the Pacific coast most of my life and been to dozens of beaches, but never once on any beach have I seen a sign which reads "Pacific Ocean." Same with no signs at the edge of or in the middle of "Rocky Mountains" or "The Alps." (I've been, and I haven't seen). Yet, OSM maps oceans and mountain ranges. How do we know their names without anything on the ground? It's a tricky question which usually starts with some hand-waving (especially for enormous, major-chunk-of-planet-sized entities like oceans), and progresses to "well, everybody simply KNOWS that's the Pacific Ocean..." and we are faced with OTG and an inherent contradiction of what we should do, then we do it anyway. (Name something without having a solid OTG reality). To a lesser (weaker) extent, OTG flexibility might also apply to newly developed routes (bicycle routes are a good example) as these may not be signed (or well signed), yet a government (whether local, state or national) expresses these as real (on a public map — just as with a boundary) and poorly signs or doesn't sign them at all in the real world. OSM uses "unsigned_ref" to denote these, but it's a fuzzy semantic that doesn't have wide agreement or even consensus. I have seen the opinion that these shouldn't be in OSM at all, which seems a shame for things which many local users (of a bike route decreed by a government, for example) agree do "exist," yet there isn't any OTG evidence for this. While one tenet of OSM is "don't copy from other maps," when the only evidence that something exists is ONLY from a PUBLIC map (yielding us ODbL permission), we have to reconcile that with OTG. Today, we don't do that very well. So, rather than being fully enthusiastic about the absolute application of OTG (we simply can't), let's realize that it is a good guideline which should be followed where it can, yet it must include some flexibility which allows for exceptions. I haven't seen that said (here, yet, perhaps it is elsewhere) and I believe it is important to be explicit about it. SteveA California ___ 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] Crimea situation - on the ground
Thanks Stevea, I really liked your examples. And thank you Mikel - I agree. OSM already has substantial amount of non-physical but relevant information (e.g. many IDs pointing to external registries), and as Stevea points out - even naming for something local could be contradictory (e.g. two fairly large groups of people could refer to the same place/object by different names). I also think OTG should be a general guideline/goal, simply because map could not be complete without some of that information, and the map should be able to reflect difference of opinions to some "reasonable" degree (an intentionally vague term). On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:15 PM stevea wrote: > Without touching the Crimea specifically, I'd like to chime in that > "on-the-ground" (OTG) is a good rule, but in reality it must be approached > more like a goal to be achieved where it can be, as we must acknowledge > that realistically, this rule both cannot be and is not applied everywhere > under all circumstances. That is the simple truth and OSM should not > pretend otherwise. Maybe we need to tighten up our language about how we > define OTG to better acknowledge this, clearly and explicitly. > > A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which frequently do > not exist "on the ground," but our map data would be remiss if it excluded > these. So we do our best to include boundaries even as they are not > on-the-ground, but exist in both de pure and de facto ways in the real > world, so OSM expresses them. Yes, when boundaries are disputed, this is > difficult: there is no way around that and it isn't unique to OSM. I like > Mikel's recent suggestion positing that OSM can better develop tagging that > accommodates a wide array of disputes, as we do have plastic tagging and it > can evolve well. > > Other examples include large bodies of water and mountain ranges. I've > lived on the Pacific coast most of my life and been to dozens of beaches, > but never once on any beach have I seen a sign which reads "Pacific > Ocean." Same with no signs at the edge of or in the middle of "Rocky > Mountains" or "The Alps." (I've been, and I haven't seen). Yet, OSM maps > oceans and mountain ranges. How do we know their names without anything on > the ground? It's a tricky question which usually starts with some > hand-waving (especially for enormous, major-chunk-of-planet-sized entities > like oceans), and progresses to "well, everybody simply KNOWS that's the > Pacific Ocean..." and we are faced with OTG and an inherent contradiction > of what we should do, then we do it anyway. (Name something without having > a solid OTG reality). > > To a lesser (weaker) extent, OTG flexibility might also apply to newly > developed routes (bicycle routes are a good example) as these may not be > signed (or well signed), yet a government (whether local, state or > national) expresses these as real (on a public map — just as with a > boundary) and poorly signs or doesn't sign them at all in the real world. > OSM uses "unsigned_ref" to denote these, but it's a fuzzy semantic that > doesn't have wide agreement or even consensus. I have seen the opinion > that these shouldn't be in OSM at all, which seems a shame for things which > many local users (of a bike route decreed by a government, for example) > agree do "exist," yet there isn't any OTG evidence for this. While one > tenet of OSM is "don't copy from other maps," when the only evidence that > something exists is ONLY from a PUBLIC map (yielding us ODbL permission), > we have to reconcile that with OTG. Today, we don't do that very well. > > So, rather than being fully enthusiastic about the absolute application of > OTG (we simply can't), let's realize that it is a good guideline which > should be followed where it can, yet it must include some flexibility which > allows for exceptions. I haven't seen that said (here, yet, perhaps it is > elsewhere) and I believe it is important to be explicit about it. > > SteveA > California > ___ > 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] Crimea situation - on the ground
I made such a proposal a while ago; it got majority approval but not the supermajority required. At the time, I said I don't think a supermajority is possible. However, my original proposal would, I believe, lend considerable strength to the OTG rule, especially in hot spots like Crimea. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 8:02 PM Mikel Maron wrote: > There's two different concepts at play, that OSM does not currently tag > well when in conflict. There's national sovereignty, which is a political > concept which in large part depends on international recognition. And > there's de facto control, which could result from military actions. For > most of the world, these two are in sync. In Crimea, they are not, and > there is a dispute. > > There are so many varieties of disputed territories in the world, it's > hard to come up with a system that works for every single situation. And > tagging structures for disputes could certainly get complicated. However, I > believe that the OSM community could come up with something that works well > enough for Crimea, that it would be broadly agreed that the situation is > represented accurately. > > That tagging may not work for every single dispute in the world, but the > tags could evolve as well as they are implemented in practice. > > -Mikel > > > > On Friday, February 7, 2020, 01:38:23 PM EST, Tomas Straupis < > tomasstrau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Note, that I'm opposing OTG rule application to non-physical objects > as that is philosophically impossible as well as too unpracticall. > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ > 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] Crimea situation - on the ground
Many things we think of as "facts" are in fact somewhat subjective. Things have a name or some attribute "according to" some authority. London "is not" London, it is "called" London according to local people, government etc. But the same place is "called" Londres, according to a different authority, namely French-speakers; both points of view are equally valid, but only within their intended context. In the case of Crimea, two different authorities have different views of the jurisdiction to which it belongs. That is a fact, that we can safely map. We can represent the border in one place "according to Russia" and in another place "according to Ukraine" without taking sides. It is then down to the renderer/consumer which source is preferred. If we don't stop taking sides, well, we are taking sides - whatever our arguments to support our choice. We will never "win" that one. I am applying a bit of data management here; every data item should have a provenance, value domain, validity period etc. The "truth" is always only relative to a particular frame of reference.___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
