Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
I'm not arguing there shouldn't be a standard, but I am pointing out OSM is hardly consistent. Question is, can we remove some of the inconsistency by introducing new tags? If no, then Serge's suggestion (without the additional tags) seems to be in line with current OSM practice. Dmitry ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
Am 16.10.2011 03:47, dimka israeli: I repeat, the only way, according to current OSM schema as I understand it, to represent the above point of view is a node in Hebrew, place=city, capital=yes, is_in=Israel. Arabic *and* Hebrew are the official languages of Israel. You can see that also the Jerusalem Municipality website is in Arabic and Hebrew ( English) [1]. You didn't explicitely state it but: Do you oppose having יְרוּשָׁלַיִם - القُدس used as the name? Claudius [1] http://www.jerusalem.muni.il/jer_main/defaultnew.asp?lng=2 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
Arabic *and* Hebrew are the official languages of Israel. You can see that also the Jerusalem Municipality website is in Arabic and Hebrew ( English) [1]. Hebrew is locally considered to be the primary language. While Arabic is also an official one, Hebrew clearly takes precedence. The Jerusalem emblem contains the name only in Hebrew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblem_of_Jerusalem You didn't explicitely state it but: Do you oppose having יְרוּשָׁלַיִם - القُدس used as the name? Yes, I oppose to have a double name because I would like the node to represent the de-facto capital of Israel which is a Jewish state, whose primary language is Hebrew. I believe that the current dispute can easily be solved with introduction of appropriate tags which will clarify any disambiguity. Please consider my proposal outlined below. I think what is really missing from current OSM rules is the precise meaning of the tag capital. The dictionary definition is seat of government, which doesn't consider recognition but is rather a property attached to a city by a state. Still, the issue of recognition is important to many people so OSM should reflect that. Capitals can be de-facto (when the city physically contains the seats of government) or only proclaimed (which is a necessary condition for a city to be called capital in the first place). Our situation is as follows: 1) Jerusalem is a de-facto, not recognized capital of Israel. 2) Al-Quds (East Jerusalem) is not de-facto, not recognized capital of Palestine (but capital nevertheless because it was proclaimed so by the PLO). Please note that they explicitly talk about East Jerusalem. My proposal therefore includes the introduction of the tags 1) capital:recognized, type:binary, default value: yes. 2) capital:de-facto, type:binary, default value: yes. There will be two nodes: Node 1: name=ירושלים name:en=Jerusalem place=city capital=yes is_in=Israel capital:recognized=no capital:de-facto=yes The node will be placed west of the 1949 armistice line and west of the Old City of Jerusalem. Node 2: name=القُدس name:en=East Jerusalem place=city capital=yes is_in=Palestine?(will be chosen by the local community there) capital:recognized=no capital:de-facto=no The node will be placed east of the 1949 armistice line and east of the Old City of Jerusalem. Please note that this will be in accordance with Wikipedia articles on Jerusalem, East Jerusalem, and Israel. I think Wikipedia in this case represents an important source because they are driven by consensus, similar to OSM. In fact, they had lengthy discussions about the topic[1,2]: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jerusalem/capital [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Discussion_archive/Jerusalem_as_capital ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:09 PM, dimka israeli dimka.isr...@hotmail.co.il wrote: There will be two nodes: Node 1: name=ירושלים name:en=Jerusalem place=city capital=yes is_in=Israel Node 2: name=القُدس name:en=East Jerusalem place=city capital=yes is_in=Palestine?(will be chosen by the local community there) I'd suggest we remove the capital: tags (too controversial, and I've removed them from the quotes) , and then I think this is perfect. That is, two nodes, or two ways, with the tags as above - Serge ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
I'd suggest we remove the capital: tags (too controversial, and I've removed them from the quotes) , and then I think this is perfect. In that case, what is the meaning of capital=yes in OSM? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
Like all things OSM, there are at least three answers - what the wiki says, what plant.osm has and how renders behave. A few examples from planet.osm: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/256423505 Name = Nicosia, capital = yes, is_in = Cyprus Northern Cypress also claims this as a capital. Note - the name is in English - not Turkish or Greek. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1147314253 name = 台北市 (Taipei), capital = yes, is_in = Taiwan China claims Taiwan is not a country so a relation like: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/449220 seems to be controversial. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/448726107 name = Prishtinë, is_in:country = Kosovo, capital = yes Kosovo is not universally recognized. To summarize - the name= can be in English, mixed languages, or local. You can use the capital=yes on capitals recognized by only one country, or a handful, or many. The relation of capital=yes and country can be established by relation, by in_in:country or not at all. I'm not arguing there shouldn't be a standard, but I am pointing out OSM is hardly consistent. John On 64-07-22 11:59 AM, dimka israeli wrote: I'd suggest we remove the capital: tags (too controversial, and I've removed them from the quotes) , and then I think this is perfect. In that case, what is the meaning of capital=yes in OSM? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
On 01/-10/-28163 09:59 PM, Andy Robinson wrote: Some feedback from local mappers regarding way's vs node's for the E/W parts of the city would be helpful here. Andy, first of all I think you could have been a little bit more responsive during all this time. You didn't even try to get a statement from us or understand our position, you just did nothing, not even responded to my emails. I am sorry if I was making too much noise for you, but I repeat that the DWG decision was very quick in the first place, and since it was temporary anyway then it was your responsibility as a mediator to see a resolution quickly as well. I personally don't care about the default rendering, but only about the usefulness of the data. I respect different points of view, but also expect from people to respect mine. So forgive me if I repeat myself, but I would like the following point of view (which is in fact an official point of view of Israel) be represented in the OSM database, so that this particular point of view can be rendered (by a custom renderer) easily, without making too much ad-hoc additions/removals of nodes or tags: Jerusalem (ירושלים), is a (self-proclaimed, like any other one) capital of the State of Israel, where the seats of the government branches reside (just like the definition of capital in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_city). It is a municipal entity of type city with accordance to the division of the ministry of interior of Israel. Suggestion to remove capital and city from Hebrew Jerusalem therefore effectively hides this point of view, which is not just any arbitrary one but even supported by the fact that the city within its proclaimed boundaries is under full Israeli civilian control. I repeat, the only way, according to current OSM schema as I understand it, to represent the above point of view is a node in Hebrew, place=city, capital=yes, is_in=Israel. I would not oppose if anyone wishes to indicate the fact that the status of capital and/or city is not recognized by such and such international bodies (but see for example https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html under section Government) by adding appropriate tags to the above mentioned node (such as capital:recognized=no or recognized:un=no, recognized:usa=no, recognized:intl=no, recognized:world=no). But hey, for millions of Israelis who live in this country it is the capital, and there is no other one. As far as I care, Al-Quds in Arabic can be added as city, capital=yes, is_in whatever. I would not touch such a node and would not trick the default osm.org renderer to display the Hebrew one over it. The only thing which would be appropriate is to tag such a node with capital:recognized=no as well. In the future maybe someone who likes disputes would add a special conflict relation containing the two capitals, making it possible to render some default name instead of the two (or more) members of that relation. As to delineating east vs. west, I think it is not practical. Today there is no physical barrier, and there are Jews living in the east side (this is not a political statement but a fact). On the other hand, there is already the admin_level=2 way which runs along the Green Line, practically it was the border until 1967 so no need to make another way coinciding with it. I believe that such a solution (two nodes and not three) will leave OSM as an open project, without making the impression that it takes sides or tries to force something on somebody. Since most of you apparently agree that both points of view are legitimate, it would only be fitting if OSM allowed both of them and not a consensus which is no consensus at all. Finally, I would like to express my admiration to all the work the OSM community has done over the years. Although in Israel there is not much awareness yet, I believe that in time we would learn to appreciate its huge potential to make the world better. Sincerely, Dmitry B. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] wrote: Sent: 08 October 2011 20:12 To: 'Andrew Guertin'; talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation -Original Message- From: Andrew Guertin [mailto:andrew.guer...@uvm.edu] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation On 10/07/2011 11:40 AM, Andy Robinson wrote: I'm going to suggest the latter, three nodes as follows: [...] Any solution should probably apply to relations as well as nodes (or instead of nodes, if I had my way). See also http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/131585141 with a creation date of 2011-09-28. (Was this deleted and recreated? Wikipedia appears to have a screenshot of it, but their image is from February...) Should the entire city be tagged with landuse=residential like it currently is? Arguably only those areas that are actually residential of course should only have the residential tag but I get what you mean. If at the moment there is a surrounding way with that tag then I'd not suggest to change it until others get around to tagging landuse more accurately. Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
Andrew Guertin [mailto:andrew.guer...@uvm.edu] wrote: Sent: 07 October 2011 17:08 To: talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation On 10/07/2011 11:40 AM, Andy Robinson wrote: I'm going to suggest the latter, three nodes as follows: [...] Any solution should probably apply to relations as well as nodes (or instead of nodes, if I had my way). See also http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/131585141 with a creation date of 2011-09-28. (Was this deleted and recreated? Wikipedia appears to have a screenshot of it, but their image is from February...) A good point. I was only considering nodes but I don't see any problem with defining the east and west sections as ways (I'm not sure I would go as far as saying any need for relations at present). Ways also permits some overlap of the areas where the boundary between east and west parts is fuzzy or disputed though I'd take a dim view if the two sets of local mappers created east and west areas that encompassed the whole city. Some feedback from local mappers regarding way's vs node's for the E/W parts of the city would be helpful here. Cheers Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
Hi, This proposal is well considered and it could work in my view. Even though it's a compromise (vs. solution) in the sense that it solves a rendering 'problem', it doesn't compromise the tagging rules/principles to that end. Of course it's the local mapping community that will have to make the decision to agree to this or not. I only entered the discussion when I thought I could help move the discussion forward. By the way I don't believe the DWG acted irrationally. However their decision wasn't the best and my goal wasn't to point a finger at them but to point out a mistake so it could be corrected. On a personal level I have huge appreciation for them. And I also like the 7 day time limit. Lambert Carsten On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 16:40:18 +0100 Andy Robinson ajrli...@gmail.com wrote: In addition to the talk list and the DWG this email is being sent to those who have edited the name tag on node 29090735. Those reading the mailing list and forum will know that there is an on-going dispute between Israeli and Palestinian folks as well as unhappiness with the OSMF DWG. All relates to the name=tag for Jerusalem, the default name tag shown by the project mapnik rendering. The facts are clear that a tit for tat dispute of the name tag went on during 2009 and 2010. Also fact is that some discussions were held between mappers in the region to try and reach an agreed position. It was unfortunate that the DWG removed the name tag from the node around the same time, before the views of those discussing the point could communicate back. Regardless of this it is clear that there is no full 100% agreement between the local groups or even within each side. There have been discussions about two nodes, each holding information separately in Hebrew and Arabic, and there have also been suggestions of returning to a single node with Arabic, Hebrew (and English) names on it considering the international interest in the city. Both might work but nether offers a sustainable solution long term, mainly because as new mappers come and go the view of different individuals will change, and so it will be also for those viewing the map. I was asked to help mediate in the dispute. Something that I have found almost impossible as there is no basis on which to force mediation in the first place. I have however looked at the matter and offer the following for consideration and I would hope implementation. It must be recognised that no solution will be perfect. 1. All cities of the world have a varying demographic. Few have only one language or faith. Jerusalem has a population of over 700,000 and by all accounts the religious split of its people (ignoring minority groups) is in the order of 2/3 Jewish, 1/3 Arabic. Therefore a significant number of people will be served by having the name of Jerusalem visible in Hebrew and also in Arabic. English might be useful addition for the international interest in the city but that can be argued for all major cities around the world and therefore I don't see reason to include it in this solution. As with all other languages the language specific name tags are always available anyway. 2. There appear to be three choices for the number of nodes. One node to reflect the whole of the city, two nodes to reflect east and west, or three nodes to reflect both of the above. I'm going to suggest the latter, three nodes as follows: Node 1: With the name in Hebrew and Arabic (in that order to reflect the demographic). Since I believe all of Jerusalem considers it to be the capital, it can have the capital tag as well as the place=city tag. This is what most viewing a zoomed out view would see on the default mapnik rendered tiles. No is_in tag would be added to avoid the political connotations, though a note (in English) would be added to reflect why this tag is missing. This node would carry all the international language specific name tags for Jerusalem as well as any other data that is factually correct and applicable for the city as a whole. Nodes 2 and 3: These would be created and maintained by each respective group. They would be placed to the east and west of Node 1. These nodes would not use either the capital nor the city tag but would instead reflect the east and west sector (suburb). The is_in tag would be controlled and decided upon by the respective group. Other tags would be as decided upon by the relevant group but must maintain the on-the-ground approach of factual data. DWG will continue to monitor but only to support the process of maintaining the agreed solution. Finally, I was encouraged that at the start of the discussion process the local mappers met and debated the issues. I would wish and strongly urge this to continue. It will only be through further communication and dialogue that differences will be understood. This needs to keep to one side the politics and beliefs and focus on what the wider
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
I believe that mediation in this particular problem is impossible. Ranking based on population numbers will never be recognized by both parties, as religious inspired politics will never respect a status quo nor a history. Once the Jerusalem problem is solved the dispute will continue on other cities / religions / places in the area. I think that OSM should develop an official policy towards disputed - areas, - regions, - cities - languages and some effort need to be made to suit the rendering based upon the viewers preferences. As long as there are disputes on a geographic properties of a specific area, OSM should allow for a number of versions doing justice to each recognized political or religious view. So in case of Jerusalem we should be able to present a Israel map with Hebrew names as primary to the Israelis. And at the same time present a different map (possibly with other borders) to the Palestinians. More general, we should be able to present a map in each local language, taking care on all these regional problems (take for example Lille and Rijssel, the same town in Flemish and in French) Our planet is full of disputes, differences like that and we should abandon the idea of one map fits all. As a start we may stop render names when the last change is more recent then say 4 weeks. This will effectively stop rendering based disputes. Later we may switch to localized maps but I believe that is a big effort as the text layer should be presented separately from the map. Even later we should be able to define regions where more than one version of the map exists, any editing user making a selection on what version he will be editing on. So Mohammed will edit the Palestina version of Jerusalem, and Moshe may edit a Jewesh version of Jerusalem, including different names, borders (later) and (even later) landuse. It would make OSM an even better map, able to represent the views of all people of this world. And it would help creating routeplanners for israel for example where some areas are nogo for israeli, but not for tourists or palestinines (and the other way around of course). And we Europeans do not have to learn Hebrew before being able to use the Israel map. Gert Gremmen - Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) Before printing, think about the environment. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Andy Robinson [mailto:ajrli...@gmail.com] Verzonden: Friday, October 07, 2011 5:40 PM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org CC: d...@osmfoundation.org Onderwerp: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation In addition to the talk list and the DWG this email is being sent to those who have edited the name tag on node 29090735. Those reading the mailing list and forum will know that there is an on-going dispute between Israeli and Palestinian folks as well as unhappiness with the OSMF DWG. All relates to the name=tag for Jerusalem, the default name tag shown by the project mapnik rendering. The facts are clear that a tit for tat dispute of the name tag went on during 2009 and 2010. Also fact is that some discussions were held between mappers in the region to try and reach an agreed position. It was unfortunate that the DWG removed the name tag from the node around the same time, before the views of those discussing the point could communicate back. Regardless of this it is clear that there is no full 100% agreement between the local groups or even within each side. There have been discussions about two nodes, each holding information separately in Hebrew and Arabic, and there have also been suggestions of returning to a single node with Arabic, Hebrew (and English) names on it considering the international interest in the city. Both might work but nether offers a sustainable solution long term, mainly because as new mappers come and go the view of different individuals will change, and so it will be also for those viewing the map. I was asked to help mediate in the dispute. Something that I have found almost impossible as there is no basis on which to force mediation in the first place. I have however looked at the matter and offer the following for consideration and I would hope implementation. It must be recognised that no solution will be perfect. 1. All cities of the world have a varying demographic. Few have only one language or faith. Jerusalem has a population of over 700,000 and by all accounts the religious split of its people (ignoring minority groups) is in the order of 2/3 Jewish, 1/3 Arabic. Therefore a significant number of people will be served by having the name of Jerusalem visible in Hebrew and also in Arabic. English might be useful addition for the international interest in the city but that can be argued for all major cities around the world and therefore I don't see reason to include it in this solution. As with all other languages the language specific name tags are always available anyway. 2. There appear
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
While I would (naturally) support developing better multiple-language support for maps rendered from our data, I am very very opposed to providing every- body with their comfy virtual world view. OSM is about mapping facts, and the fact is that disputed areas are -disputed-. Finding a clear scheme for tagging such situations would be far more the point than supporting make-believe worlds. Simon Am 08.10.2011 12:38, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: I believe that mediation in this particular problem is impossible. Ranking based on population numbers will never be recognized by both parties, as religious inspired politics will never respect a status quo nor a history. Once the Jerusalem problem is solved the dispute will continue on other cities / religions / places in the area. I think that OSM should develop an official policy towards disputed - areas, - regions, - cities - languages and some effort need to be made to suit the rendering based upon the viewers preferences. As long as there are disputes on a geographic properties of a specific area, OSM should allow for a number of versions doing justice to each recognized political or religious view. So in case of Jerusalem we should be able to present a Israel map with Hebrew names as primary to the Israelis. And at the same time present a different map (possibly with other borders) to the Palestinians. More general, we should be able to present a map in each local language, taking care on all these regional problems (take for example Lille and Rijssel, the same town in Flemish and in French) Our planet is full of disputes, differences like that and we should abandon the idea of one map fits all. As a start we may stop render names when the last change is more recent then say 4 weeks. This will effectively stop rendering based disputes. Later we may switch to localized maps but I believe that is a big effort as the text layer should be presented separately from the map. Even later we should be able to define regions where more than one version of the map exists, any editing user making a selection on what version he will be editing on. So Mohammed will edit the Palestina version of Jerusalem, and Moshe may edit a Jewesh version of Jerusalem, including different names, borders (later) and (even later) landuse. It would make OSM an even better map, able to represent the views of all people of this world. And it would help creating routeplanners for israel for example where some areas are nogo for israeli, but not for tourists or palestinines (and the other way around of course). And we Europeans do not have to learn Hebrew before being able to use the Israel map. Gert Gremmen - Openstreetmap.nl (alias: cetest) Before printing, think about the environment. .. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
Simon wrote: OSM is about mapping facts, If OSM were about facts then we should refrain from mapping these areas (at least certain details) as some of the map-aspects are *NOT* facts. The mere fact that a map is presented with writing Jerusalem on it implies making a political religious choice in favor of one of the parties. I am very very opposed to providing every- body with their comfy virtual world view. Go tell that on the street in Nablus, that their view on the world is virtual !!! .. Otherwise as an intermediary solution , as I suggested below , we should not render any items that have been changed back and forth a few times in a short period. Starting with names. Most of these conflicts are rendering triggered, so that will probably calm the edit wars. But I want you and all OSM member to seriously think about what a map is, once we add features that are beyond physical properties of the world. Countries, names and landuse are not strictly factual data, at least not in some parts of the world, so then, Simon, we should remove them too. Creating a common view of the world, where Jerusalem is called Jerusalem exclusively ,creates conflicts with the open structure of the map, and the privilege that *anyone* including Al Qaida , Joe average, the Palestinians and Israelis can edit OSM to their view on the world. A common view needs protections, and that is definitely NOT OSM. FACT: OSM will never be able to create a *factual* map that is acceptable to all the world. That it works for now, is merely because there was a certain consensus about what a majority of the world looks like. Since OSM is slowly getting mature, we have to deal with these problems too. My suggestion of creating different maps, would do justice to all these differences, and while not creating the simple view of the world that many people want, may point, demonstrate and support the fact how we are all different in our view on this globe. Regards, Ing. Gert Gremmen, BSc g.grem...@cetest.nl www.cetest.nl Kiotoweg 363 3047 BG Rotterdam T 31(0)104152426 F 31(0)104154953 Before printing, think about the environment. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Verzonden: Saturday, October 08, 2011 1:39 PM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation While I would (naturally) support developing better multiple-language support for maps rendered from our data, I am very very opposed to providing every- body with their comfy virtual world view. OSM is about mapping facts, and the fact is that disputed areas are -disputed-. Finding a clear scheme for tagging such situations would be far more the point than supporting make-believe worlds. Simon Am 08.10.2011 12:38, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: I believe that mediation in this particular problem is impossible. Ranking based on population numbers will never be recognized by both parties, as religious inspired politics will never respect a status quo nor a history. Once the Jerusalem problem is solved the dispute will continue on other cities / religions / places in the area. I think that OSM should develop an official policy towards disputed - areas, - regions, - cities - languages and some effort need to be made to suit the rendering based upon the viewers preferences. As long as there are disputes on a geographic properties of a specific area, OSM should allow for a number of versions doing justice to each recognized political or religious view. So in case of Jerusalem we should be able to present a Israel map with Hebrew names as primary to the Israelis. And at the same time present a different map (possibly with other borders) to the Palestinians. More general, we should be able to present a map in each local language, taking care on all these regional problems (take for example Lille and Rijssel, the same town in Flemish and in French) Our planet is full of disputes, differences like that and we should abandon the idea of one map fits all. As a start we may stop render names when the last change is more recent then say 4 weeks. This will effectively stop rendering based disputes. Later we may switch to localized maps but I believe that is a big effort as the text layer should be presented separately from the map. Even later we should be able to define regions where more than one version of the map exists, any editing user making a selection on what version he will be editing on. So Mohammed will edit the Palestina version of Jerusalem, and Moshe may edit a Jewesh version of Jerusalem, including different names, borders (later) and (even later) landuse. It would make OSM an even better map, able to represent the views of all people of this world. And it would help creating routeplanners for israel for example where some areas are nogo for israeli, but not for tourists
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
-Original Message- From: Andrew Guertin [mailto:andrew.guer...@uvm.edu] Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation On 10/07/2011 11:40 AM, Andy Robinson wrote: I'm going to suggest the latter, three nodes as follows: [...] Any solution should probably apply to relations as well as nodes (or instead of nodes, if I had my way). See also http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/131585141 with a creation date of 2011-09-28. (Was this deleted and recreated? Wikipedia appears to have a screenshot of it, but their image is from February...) Should the entire city be tagged with landuse=residential like it currently is? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
Ian writes: we are here to create map *data* for the world. The slippy map sitting at openstreetmap.org is a tool to achieve that goal, not the end goal itself. Here, here! Maybe, towards that end, we should remove the slippy map from the front page, and instead have a list of pointers to sites rendered from our map data. Including our current slippy map, but link to it with a tag saying The Map for Editors or somesuch. That will make it clear that anybody who wants to argue with how the map is rendered should be talking to the people who render *that* map, and not be looking at the tags. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-600-8815 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Op 08-10-11 23:10, Russ Nelson schreef: That will make it clear that anybody who wants to argue with how the map is rendered should be talking to the people who render *that* map, and not be looking at the tags. Or maybe this just opens examples that anyone could apply a stylesheet to that data. With the easiest example: localized maps... problem solved case closed everyone gets what he wants to view. Stefan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAk6Qv3MACgkQYH1+F2Rqwn2j4gCfT7yVIiIGrC4j4MKHfaie2bvl pMMAn3h3iApWNWVlJBICh9i8d3iZkjMT =RpW+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
In addition to the talk list and the DWG this email is being sent to those who have edited the name tag on node 29090735. Those reading the mailing list and forum will know that there is an on-going dispute between Israeli and Palestinian folks as well as unhappiness with the OSMF DWG. All relates to the name=tag for Jerusalem, the default name tag shown by the project mapnik rendering. The facts are clear that a tit for tat dispute of the name tag went on during 2009 and 2010. Also fact is that some discussions were held between mappers in the region to try and reach an agreed position. It was unfortunate that the DWG removed the name tag from the node around the same time, before the views of those discussing the point could communicate back. Regardless of this it is clear that there is no full 100% agreement between the local groups or even within each side. There have been discussions about two nodes, each holding information separately in Hebrew and Arabic, and there have also been suggestions of returning to a single node with Arabic, Hebrew (and English) names on it considering the international interest in the city. Both might work but nether offers a sustainable solution long term, mainly because as new mappers come and go the view of different individuals will change, and so it will be also for those viewing the map. I was asked to help mediate in the dispute. Something that I have found almost impossible as there is no basis on which to force mediation in the first place. I have however looked at the matter and offer the following for consideration and I would hope implementation. It must be recognised that no solution will be perfect. 1. All cities of the world have a varying demographic. Few have only one language or faith. Jerusalem has a population of over 700,000 and by all accounts the religious split of its people (ignoring minority groups) is in the order of 2/3 Jewish, 1/3 Arabic. Therefore a significant number of people will be served by having the name of Jerusalem visible in Hebrew and also in Arabic. English might be useful addition for the international interest in the city but that can be argued for all major cities around the world and therefore I don't see reason to include it in this solution. As with all other languages the language specific name tags are always available anyway. 2. There appear to be three choices for the number of nodes. One node to reflect the whole of the city, two nodes to reflect east and west, or three nodes to reflect both of the above. I'm going to suggest the latter, three nodes as follows: Node 1: With the name in Hebrew and Arabic (in that order to reflect the demographic). Since I believe all of Jerusalem considers it to be the capital, it can have the capital tag as well as the place=city tag. This is what most viewing a zoomed out view would see on the default mapnik rendered tiles. No is_in tag would be added to avoid the political connotations, though a note (in English) would be added to reflect why this tag is missing. This node would carry all the international language specific name tags for Jerusalem as well as any other data that is factually correct and applicable for the city as a whole. Nodes 2 and 3: These would be created and maintained by each respective group. They would be placed to the east and west of Node 1. These nodes would not use either the capital nor the city tag but would instead reflect the east and west sector (suburb). The is_in tag would be controlled and decided upon by the respective group. Other tags would be as decided upon by the relevant group but must maintain the on-the-ground approach of factual data. DWG will continue to monitor but only to support the process of maintaining the agreed solution. Finally, I was encouraged that at the start of the discussion process the local mappers met and debated the issues. I would wish and strongly urge this to continue. It will only be through further communication and dialogue that differences will be understood. This needs to keep to one side the politics and beliefs and focus on what the wider community can benefit from in improving OSM for all. I'd argue that we don't create OSM data for ourselves but instead for the benefit of others and those that come after us. I do not consider that the DWG acted irrationally. A problem was posed and in interim solution was implemented. It might have seemed a little harsh but it is clear to me that it was never intended to be a permanent position. I was asked to mediate and I've given my opinion, so perhaps I might better describe what I have done as arbitration. If this oversteps the mark I apologise, but in the circumstances it appears the only thing I can do to move the matter to a speedy conclusion. If there is widespread descent then I will happily reconsider, otherwise I move to implement in 7 days. Cheers Andy (blackadder) ___ talk mailing list
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
Can we take a step back and view this in the context of other discussions about the viability of a map directly on http://openstreetmap.org/? As a community we've become more sensitive to the fact that visitors coming to openstreetmap will see the map and think that the project is meant to create a replacement for maps.google.com (the search product) when in fact we are here to create map *data* for the world. The slippy map sitting at openstreetmap.org is a tool to achieve that goal, not the end goal itself. Any discussion over any particular piece of the default Mapnik rendering should be tempered with that in mind. The data can be (and has been) changed to reflect the dispute over the official or default name for the node. The fact that the map on osm.org happens to render that node in a particular way does not mean we need to change anything. If a community doesn't like the way osm.org displays the data, they are free to set up their own rendering that displays the data in a manner of their pleasing (including showing a particular language's name tag before defaulting to the generic name tag). ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Jerusalem name tag - Mediation
On 10/07/2011 11:40 AM, Andy Robinson wrote: I'm going to suggest the latter, three nodes as follows: [...] Any solution should probably apply to relations as well as nodes (or instead of nodes, if I had my way). See also http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/way/131585141 with a creation date of 2011-09-28. (Was this deleted and recreated? Wikipedia appears to have a screenshot of it, but their image is from February...) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
