[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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Guillaume Rischard]

> On 11 Dec 2018, at 14:41, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> 
> no, you could ask a diplomat of a country (or other parts of their 
> government) whom they recognize, or look up their public statements, these 
> are not secondary sources like wikipedia seems to prefer (I think), but it 
> would be verifiable (repeatable) in the real world. 
> 

A frequent game in Kosovo-Serbia relations is played around claims related to 
this issue. Does Papua New Guinea recognise Kosovo? Did Sao Tome and Principe 
ever? A massive amount of work goes into creating something like 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_Kosovo#Withdrawn_recognition
 

 , and if you ask diplomats how many countries recognise Kosovo, the most 
prudent will not give you a number but an approximation.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > Which would mean the end of OSM verifiability as intersubjective
> > verifiability based on observations in the real world in favor of
> > Wikipedia verifiability based on 'reliable sources'.
>
> no, you could ask a diplomat of a country (or other parts of their
> government) whom they recognize, or look up their public statements,
> these are not secondary sources like wikipedia seems to prefer (I
> think), but it would be verifiable (repeatable) in the real world.

No, OSM verifiability means *independent* verifiability.  If verifying a 
statement depends on a singular authority that is not compatible with 
the concept of OpenStreetMap's independent, intersubjective 
verifiability.  Same as restaurant star ratings etc.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Simon Poole]

The involved parties typically want us to disseminate their truth and
only that*. It is not a "why not", the proposals are simply trying to
solve a different problem (that IMHO doesn't actually need to be solved,
and will simply lead to us never having any working boundaries at all,
but as said it has nothing to do with the problem at hand.

* ever wondered why there is that bit about airports in the policy? Yes,
because one government wanted us to remove airports that where located
in a part of the country they, still, don't control and they had long
winded arguments about these not being airports because they hadn't
designated them as such.

Am 11.12.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Colin Smale:
>
> On 2018-12-11 13:53, Simon Poole wrote:
>
>> As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down
>> the road.
>>
>> We will still have to make choices
>>  
> Why? It would be better if OSM did not make choices, but represented
> differing points of view equally, without expressing any kind of
> preference. Keep out of politics, or it will not end well! Let the
> renderer/user choose their preferred world view.
>  
> Why not simply allow multiple manifestations of admin_level=2 with an
> additional tag like "according_to". Job done.
>  
>  
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 11. Dez. 2018 um 13:28 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann :

> On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > That’s why we need a method in OSM to say which countries recognize a
> > country/border, as it seems the most objective representation.
>
> Which would mean the end of OSM verifiability as intersubjective
> verifiability based on observations in the real world in favor of
> Wikipedia verifiability based on 'reliable sources'.



no, you could ask a diplomat of a country (or other parts of their
government) whom they recognize, or look up their public statements, these
are not secondary sources like wikipedia seems to prefer (I think), but it
would be verifiable (repeatable) in the real world.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Di., 11. Dez. 2018 um 13:57 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole :

>
> As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down
> the road.
>
> We will still have to make choices and even if that is just to declare
> that a boundary is disputed (which for example is definitely not
> something RU agrees with in the case of Crimea) and those choices will
> be continued to be questioned and attacked.



We would not have to declare that a boundary is "disputed", but we could
map who accepts or refuses recognition of a border (the mere fact that some
country does not recognize a border would be an indication that something
is "disputed" here). We would have to decide though whose acceptions and
refusals we consider worth adding (i.e. who we recognize as a country /
significant entity).
Yes, we would continue to make choices, but IMHO on a much more fine
grained level, on a different level in qualitative terms.



> If somebody wanted to use a
> different set of borders, they could have easily done so now, that is
> not the problem



they could have taken borders from a different source, with OSM data alone
you typically do not have sufficient information to understand who supports
which border, sometimes not even that there is a border dispute at all.



>
> The really nice property of the now defunct policy was that you could
> defend it with simple practical arguments, aka if you drive from A to B
> and we don't show de facto boundaries of control, you are dead. But 99%
> of the way the policy worked was through the appearance that it was cast
> in stone.
>


+1, once you open that can of worms, you'll see that it is not just _one_
case ;-)

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 11.12.2018 o 13:26, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> That’s why we need a method in OSM to say which countries recognize a
>> country/border, as it seems the most objective representation.
> Which would mean the end of OSM verifiability as intersubjective 
> verifiability based on observations in the real world in favor of 
> Wikipedia verifiability based on 'reliable sources'.


I have no clear answer how to solve borders problem, but that sounds
like FUD for me (using emotionally loaded claims not backed by evidence
to push or block something) and I'm against this kind of arguing. OSM is
not "all or nothing" game.

For example I don't believe "name:en=Crimean Peninsula" is observable in
this place, but I don't think anybody would complain against it, because
we already do rely on some sources other than real world (meant as a
ground truth). And that did not end other ways of verification yet.


-- 
"Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-12-11 13:53, Simon Poole wrote:

> As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down
> the road.
> 
> We will still have to make choices

Why? It would be better if OSM did not make choices, but represented
differing points of view equally, without expressing any kind of
preference. Keep out of politics, or it will not end well! Let the
renderer/user choose their preferred world view. 

Why not simply allow multiple manifestations of admin_level=2 with an
additional tag like "according_to". Job done.___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Simon Poole]

As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down
the road.

We will still have to make choices and even if that is just to declare
that a boundary is disputed (which for example is definitely not
something RU agrees with in the case of Crimea) and those choices will
be continued to be questioned and attacked. If somebody wanted to use a
different set of borders, they could have easily done so now, that is
not the problem and thinking that this can be solved by simply mapping
more variants is ignoring the actual motivation behind the complaints.

The really nice property of the now defunct policy was that you could
defend it with simple practical arguments, aka if you drive from A to B
and we don't show de facto boundaries of control, you are dead. But 99%
of the way the policy worked was through the appearance that it was cast
in stone.

Opening up the matter to political influence is opening up our decisions
to a never ending deluge of arguments by professionals paid by their
respective governments (which was BTW the reason we put the policy in
place back in 2012/13, essentially I had enough of wasting my time for
months on ends arguing with people that were being paid for what they
were doing), and it will not go away by adding more tags.

Simon

Am 11.12.2018 um 10:03 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 11. Dec 2018, at 02:18, Andy Townsend  wrote:
>>
>> Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AivEQmfPpk if you haven't already 
>> seen it for some of the gory detail.
>
> Makes a good statement at the end: „Ultimately, what makes a country a 
> country, is if other countries think that country is a country“
>
> That’s why we need a method in OSM to say which countries recognize a 
> country/border, as it seems the most objective representation. 
>
>
> Cheers, Martin 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> That’s why we need a method in OSM to say which countries recognize a
> country/border, as it seems the most objective representation.

Which would mean the end of OSM verifiability as intersubjective 
verifiability based on observations in the real world in favor of 
Wikipedia verifiability based on 'reliable sources'.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. Dec 2018, at 01:23, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> Is it serious or some joke/hoax?


it seems to be a significant shift at least, from following the on the ground 
rule as a general policy towards centralized top down decisions on a case by 
case basis by the board. 

This puts the stated role of the OSMF a as whole in question:

e.g. Core values:
„
Ground Truth: OSM favours objective “Ground Truth” over all other sources“


Mission statement: 
OSMF
„
Does not decide what to map or how to map“



The OSMF Board:
„
Does not drive mapping in a particular direction
Does not decide what to map or how to map
Has no role in setting tags
...
Does not undermine the Working Groups by taking on tasks that could be advanced 
by them“

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement


So likely the time the board has requested is because it is planning to consult 
with the community about changing the core values, which is also part of its 
responsibility: „
Sets core values for OSM (via consultation)“

Cheers,
Martin 




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 11. Dec 2018, at 02:18, Andy Townsend  wrote:
> 
> Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AivEQmfPpk if you haven't already seen 
> it for some of the gory detail.


Makes a good statement at the end: „Ultimately, what makes a country a country, 
is if other countries think that country is a country“

That’s why we need a method in OSM to say which countries recognize a 
country/border, as it seems the most objective representation. 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Is it serious or some joke/hoax?

Because making such decision would providing any justification at all would be 
ridiculous.
10 Dec 2018, 17:55 by m...@rtijn.org:
>
> The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous 
> situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to 
> further remain in effect.
>
> The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates the 
> difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an ongoing 
> basis.
>
> A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks.
>
> Best regards,
> Martijn van Exel
> Secretary, OpenStreetMap Foundation
> ___
> 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] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Michael Reichert]

Dear board,

Am 10.12.18 um 18:14 schrieb Tom Hughes:
> On 10/12/2018 16:55, Martijn van Exel wrote:
> 
>> On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to
>> review the Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea.
>>
>> The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the
>> previous situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group
>> minutes, is to further remain in effect.
>>
>> The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates
>> the difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on
>> an ongoing basis.
>>
>> A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks.
> 
> With respect that doesn't make much sense.
> 
> Either you have a rationale for the decision, in which case you should
> state it, or you don't and just want to placate a vocal community.
> 
> At the moment it sounds like you've decided what result you want and
> now you're going to desperately cast around for a way to rationalise
> that decision in the eventual statement.

+1

@Board
Did you consult the working group being involved in boundary disputes
(DWG and LWG) before you came to that decision?

How does your decision comply with the on-the-ground rule?

Could you please share the original complaint with redacted names or a
summary of it and its arguments?

How many board members agreed, how many disagreed?

Did any board member not participate in the voting due to a conflict of
interest? Did these members participate in the decision making?

Best regards

Michael

-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Christoph Hormann]

On Monday 10 December 2018, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>
> A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks.

Transparency at work...

Like Tom i read this such as that you have decided on a desired result 
but were not yet able to engineer a consistent reality around it.

Oh, the irony of this is just priceless.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Tom Hughes]

On 10/12/2018 16:55, Martijn van Exel wrote:


On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review the 
Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea.

The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous 
situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to 
further remain in effect.

The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates the 
difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an ongoing 
basis.

A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks.


With respect that doesn't make much sense.

Either you have a rationale for the decision, in which case you should
state it, or you don't and just want to placate a vocal community.

At the moment it sounds like you've decided what result you want and
now you're going to desperately cast around for a way to rationalise
that decision in the eventual statement.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

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

[OSM-talk] Board decision on Crimea complaint

[Martijn van Exel]

Hi all,

On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review the 
Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea.

The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous 
situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to 
further remain in effect.

The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates the 
difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an ongoing 
basis.

A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks.

Best regards,
Martijn van Exel
Secretary, OpenStreetMap Foundation
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk