Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Steve Doerr" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure




On 05/10/2011 16:36, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

The status of Jerusalem as part of Israel is not disputed. Its status as 
a Palestinian city is


I'm not sure that's true. Israel was effectively created as a result of a 
UN partition plan that would have created a Jewish state and an Arab 
state, but would have left Jerusalem administered by the UN itself. Even 
now, I believe most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of 
Israel: most treat Tel Aviv as the capital, presumably to emphasize that 
they don't accept that Jerusalem unambiguously belongs to Israel.




This raises another point. Should the node in question have the tag 
"capital=yes" removed, so that the map data reflects what seems to be the 
intentional community consensus [1] ?


If the node is not tagged as the capital, then it may be less of a problem 
how the name actually gets displayed.


David


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positions_on_Jerusalem


FWIW, the DWG's stance seems reasonable to me, although the obvious 
solution would be to have the two names separated by 'space hyphen space' 
as seems to be the case with Brussels. It would seem reasonable to give 
Hebrew precedence - which ironically would mean the Arabic name would be 
on the left!


--
Steve

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








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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Lambert Carsten]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 23:04:02 +0100
"Andy Robinson"  wrote:

> Mediation currently appears problematic because only one side of the
> discussion is present. Ideally I'd like to see a joint statement from
> the two sides (the local mappers) that states what the difference(s)
> of position are. If it can't be joint then at least two separate
> statements. At the moment we have one side making a lot of noise only
> which means there is no practical route to mediation presently.
Is it correct that this all started with the now silent 'other side'
asking the DWG to step in?
In that case maybe the DWG should revert their 'name removal decision'
and let the local mappers continue the way things were before. The
silent side can always decide to speak up in which case you will have
something to mediate. Can we even speak of a dispute if one party is
absent?

I still think the real dispute is about the name tag and they just want
it back, as do I.

Lambert Carsten

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[kenneth gonsalves]

On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 08:38 +0200, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen wrote:
> What a childish approach of both sides…

what exactly is childish in the approach of this side?
-- 
regards
Kenneth Gonsalves


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen]

What a childish approach of both sides...

This is something the community should be ashamed of !

 

Gert Gremmen

-

 

Openstreetmap.nl  (alias: cetest)

P Before printing, think about the environment. 

 

 

Van: dimka israeli [mailto:dimka.isr...@hotmail.co.il] 
Verzonden: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:00 AM
Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

 

Hello to all, 

I would like to inform the OSM community about an ongoing dispute 
regarding the node "Jerusalem" 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/29090735
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/no
de/29090735&usg=AFQjCNFtSGU9ubMlv8E0-RxmMN7shkmxkA> . 

In my opinion, the handling of this dispute by OSM officials has up
until now been entirely 
inappropriate, damaging for the Israeli OSM community and  perhaps even
politically motivated.

Since all official OSM representatives remain deaf to our arguments and
pleas, effectively holding our entire community hostage with threats of
ban, I saw no other choice but to send this letter.

Allow me to describe very briefly the essense of the dispute, sticking
to facts only. More details can be found at this forum 
thread: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=13178
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtop
ic.php%3Fid%3D13178&usg=AFQjCNE5OjcDPw5zs_J8tbqERAvNCO4G2g> .

The Jerusalem node had its name: tag changing several times by people
who were not members of OSM Israel, for unknown (to us) reasons, and
always changed back by us in order to keep up with our tagging
standards. Those standards specify that all places inside Israel should
be tagged with Hebrew as default, unless specific agreement otherwise.
This convention was never disputed.  Last switch to Hebrew name of the
Jerusalem node occured in December 2010, and no changes were made since
then.
In addition to Jerusalem node, there exists a separate "place=suburb"
node tagged "Al-Quds" in Arabic which represents mostly Arab-populated
east neighborhoods of Jerusalem. This tagging was never in dispute.


Three months ago, several people who never before made edits to OSM,
claimed that they cannot identify themselves with the map (and as a
result, are not ready to contribute to it), because the name of the city
of Jerusalem did not appear on the main OSM site in Arabic language with
the same prominence as the Hebrew one. This claim was expressed not to
the members of the Israeli community, but to Mikel Maron who happened to
be in Jerusalem. He  set to organize a meeting between the two parties.

Mikel sent an email to the OSM Data Working Group where he apparently
elaborated the situation, claiming that there has been an "edit war"
over the node (a highly controversial claim per se). This was done prior
to the meeting, without giving the two sides any chance to talk.

On the morning of the meeting day and prior to the meeting itself, the
DWG removed the name: tag from the node, without making any direct
contact with us.

Anxious to have it back, we proposed during the meeting to have two
separate nodes, tagged respectively in Hebrew and Arabic. However, the
other side would agree on nothing less than equal rendering (they are
explicitly interested in rendering only) of the two names, which implied
that the Arabic node would be tagged as capital (analogous to Hebrew
Jerusalem). However, it was pointed out that this would certainly create
problems with mapnik on low zoom levels (where the two nodes would
overlap and only one of them would show). Such a situation was not
acceptable to the other side, and so we concluded the meeting by letting
Mikel contact the mapnik team and come back with an answer.

After coming back home, we actually started to have a discussion in our
forum (see link above). Many of us couldn't participate in the meeting
(only two of Israeli mappers were present there), and so expressed their
opinion in the matter for the first time. Furthermore, we found out that
the other side of the dispute is an organization with a clear political
agenda related to Arab-Israeli conflict in general and Jerusalem in
particular. Eventually we backed up from the agreement and requested
further discussions with the other side. Mikel has stepped down as a
mediator, admitting that he was too involved in this.

We have asked the DWG to appoint a new mediator and to restore the
situation to what it was prior to their intervention, until the dispute
is settled. The new mediator was appointed, but the DWG categorically
refused to revert their deletion and pressed us to come up with a
solution  which the other side would agree on. Although we expressed our
willingness to discuss the situation with the other side in any online
forum, they never answered us (they actually made no edits in OSM since
then)

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[john whelan]

Just a comment, "local mappers" is difficult to define.  Call a meeting six
people turn up and make a decision?

I don't have any answers on this one but inconsistent local decisions makes
life more difficult for people trying to use data from different places.
Routing renders / maps spring to mind.

Cheerio John

On 5 October 2011 18:04, Andy Robinson  wrote:

> Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] wrote:
> > Sent: 05 October 2011 18:51
> > To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> > Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure
>
>
> >
> > Andy Robinson has been called in to mediate in this situation but
> mediation
> > requires patience, and a willingness to compromise on all sides.
> >
>
> Mediation currently appears problematic because only one side of the
> discussion is present. Ideally I'd like to see a joint statement from the
> two sides (the local mappers) that states what the difference(s) of
> position
> are. If it can't be joint then at least two separate statements. At the
> moment we have one side making a lot of noise only which means there is no
> practical route to mediation presently.
>
> Cheers
> Andy
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Andy Robinson]

Frederik Ramm [mailto:frede...@remote.org] wrote:
> Sent: 05 October 2011 18:51
> To: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure


> 
> Andy Robinson has been called in to mediate in this situation but
mediation
> requires patience, and a willingness to compromise on all sides.
> 

Mediation currently appears problematic because only one side of the
discussion is present. Ideally I'd like to see a joint statement from the
two sides (the local mappers) that states what the difference(s) of position
are. If it can't be joint then at least two separate statements. At the
moment we have one side making a lot of noise only which means there is no
practical route to mediation presently.

Cheers
Andy


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 10/5/2011 1:50 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:

Hi,

On 10/05/2011 11:14 AM, Lambert Carsten wrote:

If Hebrew is the (official) local language


Israel has two official local languages, Hebrew and Arabic. This is a
fact and upheld by Israel's supreme court.


And apparently a third de facto language, English, on signs.

There's even a real world dispute over signs! 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8148089.stm


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Steve Doerr]

On 05/10/2011 17:43, Lambert Carsten wrote:
-19 jan 2009 Esperanza36 added the Arabic name in front of the Hebrew 
version.


No, Hebrew came first. (Remember, both languages are written right-to-left.)

--
Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Steve Doerr]

On 05/10/2011 16:36, Serge Wroclawski wrote:

The status of Jerusalem as part of Israel is not disputed. Its status 
as a Palestinian city is


I'm not sure that's true. Israel was effectively created as a result of 
a UN partition plan that would have created a Jewish state and an Arab 
state, but would have left Jerusalem administered by the UN itself. Even 
now, I believe most countries do not recognize Jerusalem as the capital 
of Israel: most treat Tel Aviv as the capital, presumably to emphasize 
that they don't accept that Jerusalem unambiguously belongs to Israel.


FWIW, the DWG's stance seems reasonable to me, although the obvious 
solution would be to have the two names separated by 'space hyphen 
space' as seems to be the case with Brussels. It would seem reasonable 
to give Hebrew precedence - which ironically would mean the Arabic name 
would be on the left!


--
Steve

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 10/05/2011 11:14 AM, Lambert Carsten wrote:

If Hebrew is the (official) local language


Israel has two official local languages, Hebrew and Arabic. This is a 
fact and upheld by Israel's supreme court.



this is not a tagging issue
but a rendering one as others have noted and in that case the
combined name tag would be 'wrong' (IMHO).


Combined name tags should always be avoided, and localised name tags 
(name:xy) preferred. In the long run, we expect (and hope) that we will 
have a map that displays everything to everyone in the language they 
have configured in their browser - someone who prefers Hebrew would see 
the name in Hebrew, and some who prefers Arabic would see the name in 
Arabic.


We are not "there" yet, however; our current rendering system requires 
that exactly one name is rendered onto the tiles and that is currently 
whatever is in the "name" tag.


Given that

1. street signs in Jerusalem itself are routinely done with both 
languages (or even three, plus English)


and

2. the situation is not permanent, but only a work-around until such 
time as we can serve maps in their desired language to everyone


DWG felt that our suggestion of using both languages in the OSM "name:" 
tag was a compromise that should be acceptable to all.


The other thing that was on the table was a solution with two different 
nodes of equal status, one for each language. However due to Mapnik text 
placement rules it is likely that depending on zoom level and other 
circumstances, only one label would be drawn due to place collisions, 
and we pointed out that nobody could guarantee exactly *which* name 
would appear on which zoom level and that we would not allow any 
tampering with the data in order to bring one or the other to front. 
This uncertainty made this approach unattractive to the parties involved.


Andy Robinson has been called in to mediate in this situation but 
mediation requires patience, and a willingness to compromise on all sides.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Pieren]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Serge Wroclawski
> The status of Jerusalem as part of Israel is not disputed except by
> the same sort of people who might say that London is not the capital
> of the UK.

I don't find London in this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes

Another interresting example is the territorial disputes in the South China Sea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea

Just to say that disputed names, areas or boundaries, etc will never
end in OSM. We need a long term solution and not a 'case by case'
study checking with small communities of  OSM contributors.

Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Lambert Carsten" 

To: 
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure




On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:39:16 -0400
Serge Wroclawski  wrote:


On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Pieren  wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Serge Wroclawski
>  wrote:



I said that you can't get consensus from idle accounts.

> I like David's idea with the specific tag "name:disputed".

The status of Jerusalem as part of Israel is not disputed except by
the same sort of people who might say that London is not the capital
of the UK.

The fact that some people don't like the situation doesn't change
that.

A "disputed" tag will result in many things being marked disputed. I
can think of a bunch even in the US.


I have to agree here. It also doesn't solve disputes about what is
disputed.


But I think we have to recognise that there are some genuine disputes, and 
at the end of the day we are a provider of mapping data, not a dispute 
resolution service.


David


In other words it doesn't force parties to agree to disagree.
And rightly so, sometimes (rarely I'll admit) people can be mistaken. :)





Lambert Carsten






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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Lambert Carsten]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 11:39:16 -0400
Serge Wroclawski  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Pieren  wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Serge Wroclawski
> >  wrote:

> I said that you can't get consensus from idle accounts.
> 
> > I like David's idea with the specific tag "name:disputed".
> 
> The status of Jerusalem as part of Israel is not disputed except by
> the same sort of people who might say that London is not the capital
> of the UK.
> 
> The fact that some people don't like the situation doesn't change
> that.
> 
> A "disputed" tag will result in many things being marked disputed. I
> can think of a bunch even in the US.

I have to agree here. It also doesn't solve disputes about what is
disputed. In other words it doesn't force parties to agree to disagree.
And rightly so, sometimes (rarely I'll admit) people can be mistaken. :)

Lambert Carsten

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Lambert Carsten]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 09:52:06 -0400
Serge Wroclawski  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Lambert Carsten 
> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:47:52 +0200
> 
> > However the dispute Dmitry brought to our attention is about a
> > decision made by the DWG. Their position seems to be to agree with
> > anything the local mappers agree to. Few seem to regard that as
> > viable but more importantly it is not the whole story. The rest of
> > the community has a say too! In my opinion we have at least two
> > relevant osm rules here: -we don't tag for the renderer;
> > -the name tag holds the (IMHO: 'official') local name.
> > The statement by Frederik seems to contradict both these 'rules'.
> > I think we could help resolve this issue if we can determine
> > if these rules hold true or not.
> 
> I've largely stayed out of "taking sides" but I think one thing that's
> missing here which Dmitry tried to express is that the issue of "local
> community" in this case.

...

> Back to the point, I think the technical issues are too far away to
> solve. I think the political issues are too complex to address. In
> this case, I'd say that the DWG should be looking for consensus
> amongst active contributors, rather than the "two parties", and all
> parties involved need to realize that this is just going to happen
> here, as it sometimes happens in other areas.
> 
> - Serge

Looking into the facts they seem to paint a different picture so
here is what I have found:

1. According to Dmitry it was "the East Jerusalem mappers
(that) complained to OSM" about the name tag on the Jerusalem node (not
the Israeli mappers as Serge claims). Only the DWG can enlighten us on
this.

2. There is relative little back and forth regarding the name tag
of the Jerusalem node when I look through the history. Most of
the time the name tag holds Jerusalem in Hebrew (there were more edits
but these are the ones possibly relevant to this issue):
-27 jul 2011 OSMF removed the name tag and added warning note
-30 dec 2010 talkat reverted to Hebrew alone
-29 dec 2010 beweta added 'Jerusalem' in front of the Hebrew
version
-23 june 2010 talkat put the name tag back
-23 june 2010 abuammar48 removed the name tag
-22 june 2010 talkat reverted to Hebrew alone
-20 june 2010 Esperanza36 added the Arabic name in front of the
Hebrew version
-11 may 2009 talkat reverted to Hebrew alone
-9 may 2009 Esperanza36 added English and Arabic after Hebrew
-22 jan 2009 talkat reverted to Hebrew alone
-19 jan 2009 Esperanza36 added the Arabic name in front of the
Hebrew version.
-Before that some 'normal' corrections/editing.
None of these editors are 'newbies' with just one edit as Dmitry claims
so it's unclear to me where that comes from.
After the name tag removal bij OSMF user wikipod temporarily added the
name tag with Arabic and Hebrew, probably later realising the 'issue'
and removing it again.

3-The East Jerusalem node originally created in 2008, has had no back
and forth on the name tag until OSMF removed it tag on 30 jul 2011.

(Please add, correct or point to any relevant facts missing here.)

To me it looks like the DWG has acted to fast in removing the node and
by doing that made it look politically motivated: Their goal was to
stay out of a perceived political feud, but by trying to stay out of a
political feud that wasn't really there (in this case!), they
actually made the decision politically motivated! Life ain't easy :)

The facts in combination with OSM 'rules' (IMHO) points to a solution
being the way it was before this became an issue. Looking for a solution
through an agreement between the mappers is one of the last options we
should look at, not one of the first (as seems to have happened here).
Only if we cannot come to a conclusion using our rules and conventions
should we look to resolve a conflict through a compromise.
But keep in mind the real issue here (again IMHO) is the decision by
the DWG to remove the name tag and forbid anyone adding it until the
(other!) issue (between not clearly defined group of mappers) is
resolved by them.

Lambert Carsten

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Ed Loach  wrote:
> Serge wrote:
>
>> The status of Jerusalem as part of Israel is not disputed
>
> That's not what the Wikipedia links that I posted earlier in this
> thread suggested to me.

Ed, I'll quote the Wikipedia link:

"Jerusalem (Hebrew: יְרוּשָׁלַיִם‎‎ About this sound (audio)
(help·info), Yerushaláyim, ISO 259-3 Yrušalaym, "Abode of Peace";
Arabic: القُدس About this sound (audio) (help·info), al-Quds
[al-Sharif], "The Holy Sanctuary") is the capital of Israel, though
not internationally recognized as such.[iii] If the area and
population of East Jerusalem is included, it is Israel's largest
city[1] in both population and area,[2] with a population of 763,800
residents over an area of 125.1 km2 (48.3 sq mi).[3][4][iv] Located in
the Judean Mountains, between the Mediterranean Sea and the northern
edge of the Dead Sea, modern Jerusalem has grown far beyond the
boundaries of the Old City."

and

"On 28 October 2009, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
warned that Jerusalem must be the capital of both Israel and Palestine
if peace is to be achieved."

Nowhere does anyone believe that Jerusalem is not part of Israel.

- Serge

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Ed Loach]

Serge wrote:
 
> The status of Jerusalem as part of Israel is not disputed

That's not what the Wikipedia links that I posted earlier in this
thread suggested to me.

Ed
 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Pieren  wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:
>> The problem here is that without "another side" there can be no "consensus".

> You are saying that the opinion of one contributor
> doing 1000 edits is more important than the opinion of 1000
> contributors doing 1 edit.

Please don't speak for me.

I said that you can't get consensus from idle accounts.

> I like David's idea with the specific tag "name:disputed".

The status of Jerusalem as part of Israel is not disputed except by
the same sort of people who might say that London is not the capital
of the UK.

The fact that some people don't like the situation doesn't change that.

A "disputed" tag will result in many things being marked disputed. I
can think of a bunch even in the US.

- Serge

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Pieren  wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:
>> The problem here is that without "another side" there can be no "consensus".

> You are saying that the opinion of one contributor
> doing 1000 edits is more important than the opinion of 1000
> contributors doing 1 edit.

Please don't speak for me.

I said that if one person is editing and the other isn't, then the we
need to listen to the active contributors.

Furthermore, I said that you can't get consensus from idle accounts.

> I like David's idea with the specific tag "name:disputed".

The status of Jerusalem as part of Israel is not disputed. Its status
as a Palestinian city is,

The fact that some people don't like the situation doesn't change that.

A "disputed" tag will result in many things being marked disputed. I
can think of a bunch even in the US.

- Serge

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Pieren]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Serge Wroclawski  wrote:
> The problem here is that without "another side" there can be no "consensus".

I don't agree on this argument where a single edit contributor is
insignificant. You are saying that the opinion of one contributor
doing 1000 edits is more important than the opinion of 1000
contributors doing 1 edit.
But I agree that even if you find active contributors on both local
communities, you will never find a consensus. But OSM needs a solution
where both names can be found for geocoding and that city can be
identified in our maps (yes, it is also a rendering issue).

I like David's idea with the specific tag "name:disputed". Then we
could apply certain rules in applications using that name (and
containing the different versions). If the order is a problem in
rendered maps, it could be solved by changing the sequence locally (in
the applications side) randomly and/or at fixed time intervals for
instance...

Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Serge Wroclawski]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:25 AM, Lambert Carsten  wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:47:52 +0200

> However the dispute Dmitry brought to our attention is about a decision
> made by the DWG. Their position seems to be to agree with anything the
> local mappers agree to. Few seem to regard that as viable but more
> importantly it is not the whole story. The rest of the community has a
> say too! In my opinion we have at least two relevant osm rules here:
> -we don't tag for the renderer;
> -the name tag holds the (IMHO: 'official') local name.
> The statement by Frederik seems to contradict both these 'rules'.
> I think we could help resolve this issue if we can determine
> if these rules hold true or not.

I've largely stayed out of "taking sides" but I think one thing that's
missing here which Dmitry tried to express is that the issue of "local
community" in this case.

As I understand it, the only consistent local community are a handful
of Israeli mappers. Other contributors in the area did not edit in a
meaningful way (did not contribute much to the map) and their
motivation to sign up to OSM and click the Edit button was only to
change the name of the city.

And since the dispute, there have been no meaningful contributions on
the side who wishes the city name to not be Jerusalem.

Therefore the  request that there be local community consensus is
going to be impossible to reach, since there are contributors from the
"other side" do not exist.

The difficulty here seems to be some missteps by both the Israeli
mappers, the OSMF as represented by Mikel and the DWG, which I'll
outline, as I understand it.

1. Some Palestinians were bothered by the mentioning of Jerusalem as
Israeli. They then decided to log in and change the map in order to
change this.
2. The Israeli mappers were frustrated by what appeared to them as
vandalism, and changed it back.
3. Repeat 1,2.

The Israeli mappers then requested someone "fix the situation" and
made a request of the OSMF. Mikel then stepped in, representing the
OSMF, and came in with the understanding that both sides were active
contributors, and this was a mapping dispute.

A series of meetings occurred. Details of the meetings are in the
forums, but they sound like they weren't productive.

Mikel and DWG did what OSMF often does, which is to take a largely
"hands off" approach, throwing the issue back down to the local
community to resolve.

The problem here is that without "another side" there can be no "consensus".

Add to this the incredibly charged situation that is the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict. There are very few "neutral parties", or
people with no preconceived notions, and so it's easy to have a "gut
reaction" influence the decision process.

And then add two parties which have grown up in a place where
diplomatic talk and diplomatic process is the predominant form of
conflict, so it feels "natural" to them, and both sides of a conflict
are skilled in knowing how to use the process as a weapon, rather than
as a meant of achieving an agreement.


Back to the point, I think the technical issues are too far away to
solve. I think the political issues are too complex to address. In
this case, I'd say that the DWG should be looking for consensus
amongst active contributors, rather than the "two parties", and all
parties involved need to realize that this is just going to happen
here, as it sometimes happens in other areas.

- Serge

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Lambert Carsten]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 12:47:52 +0200
Pieren  wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Lambert Carsten 
> wrote:
> > As an outsider I really don't understand this. Is there a dispute on
> > what can be considered the local language in Jerusalem?
> 
> Yes, it is. And this happens on some other areas in the world. The
> answer just saying "set up your own tile server" is not working
> because the main Mapnik rendering is used as am international
> reference, whatever we like it or not.
Understood, but the route taken now by the DWG is to convert a rendering
dispute to a tagging dispute effectively changing the parties to the
dispute from a local community to a dispute between the DWG and one
local community.
Obviously in the main Mapnik rendering we need to be able to switch
languages. I wish it were so but I can't do it so I will just have to
wait until someone who can gets around to implementing that option.
We are all volunteers after all.

> The other answer saying "please
> find an agreement locally or keep the name empty" is also not
> acceptable impov. This type of answer will not satisfy the two local
> communities, neither the rest of the world.
> Perhaps the solution adopted by the belgians for their disputed areas
> could be used as a model: put both versions in the tag 'name' (as
> Frederik already suggested). Another way would be to check how the UN
> is handling this on their own maps...
To my knowledge both Dutch and French are official languages in
Brussels. So if the local community there cannot agree on one or the
other OSM needs to accept both versions in one name tag.
As I understand it Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is not accepted by
everybody in the international community. However Israel has effective
control over the city in the sense that there is no other authority
that can claim international acceptance for that position. And I am
trying to stick to facts here, which is what OSM is all about. So
please point out any mistaken facts on my part.

On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 10:27:32 +0100
"Ed Loach"  wrote:

> > Personally I would say:  '.. OFFICIALLY used locally.'
> 
> Which is where it becomes political... Do you mean officially
> according to Israel? Or official according to international
> resolutions such as
> 
> (see also  )
> 
> (Note: I'm not taking sides in all this, but didn't realise there
> was such a political aspect to Jerusalem until doing a bit of
> research and thought the above made interesting reading for those
> not aware of the history involved. Disclaimer: I'm not saying
> Wikipedia is a reliable source).
Agreed, that's political and therefore would need to be resolved
outside OSM. In this case that would mean a dispute about the
capital=yes tag though.

However the dispute Dmitry brought to our attention is about a decision
made by the DWG. Their position seems to be to agree with anything the
local mappers agree to. Few seem to regard that as viable but more
importantly it is not the whole story. The rest of the community has a
say too! In my opinion we have at least two relevant osm rules here:
-we don't tag for the renderer;
-the name tag holds the (IMHO: 'official') local name.
The statement by Frederik seems to contradict both these 'rules'.
I think we could help resolve this issue if we can determine
if these rules hold true or not.

Lambert Carsten

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Julio Costa Zambelli]

It is obvious to me that neither side will yield, even in an scenario with
both parties accepting on using arabic and hebrew on the name tag, they will
start fighting about wich one goes first. So it seems that the only
"solution" will be to use english (the de facto lingua franca of the world)
for the name tag, and keep hebrew and arabic in their name:he and name:ar
tags.

Regards,

Julio Costa Zambelli
OpenStreetMap Chile

julio.co...@openstreetmap.cl

http://www.openstreetmap.cl/
Cel: +56(9)89981083
Postal: Casilla 9002, Correo 3, Viña del Mar, Chile



2011/10/4 dimka israeli 

>  Hello to all,
>
> I would like to inform the OSM community about an ongoing dispute
> regarding the node "Jerusalem"
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/29090735.
>
>
> In my opinion, the handling of this dispute by OSM officials has up until
> now been entirely
> inappropriate, damaging for the Israeli OSM community and  perhaps even
> politically motivated.
>
> Since all official OSM representatives remain deaf to our arguments and
> pleas, effectively holding our entire community hostage with threats of ban,
> I saw no other choice but to send this letter.
>
> Allow me to describe very briefly the essense of the dispute, sticking to
> facts only. More details can be found at this forum
> thread: 
> http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=13178
> .
>
> The Jerusalem node had its name: tag changing several times by people who
> were not members of OSM Israel, for unknown (to us) reasons, and always
> changed back by us in order to keep up with our tagging standards. Those
> standards specify that all places inside Israel should be tagged with Hebrew
> as default, unless specific agreement otherwise. This convention was never
> disputed.  Last switch to Hebrew name of the Jerusalem node occured in
> December 2010, and no changes were made since then.
> In addition to Jerusalem node, there exists a separate "place=suburb" node
> tagged "Al-Quds" in Arabic which represents mostly Arab-populated east
> neighborhoods of Jerusalem. This tagging was never in dispute.
>
>
> Three months ago, several people who never before made edits to OSM,
> claimed that they cannot identify themselves with the map (and as a result,
> are not ready to contribute to it), because the name of the city of
> Jerusalem did not appear on the main OSM site in Arabic language with the
> same prominence as the Hebrew one. This claim was expressed not to the
> members of the Israeli community, but to Mikel Maron who happened to be in
> Jerusalem. He  set to organize a meeting between the two parties.
>
> Mikel sent an email to the OSM Data Working Group where he apparently
> elaborated the situation, claiming that there has been an "edit war" over
> the node (a highly controversial claim per se). This was done prior to the
> meeting, without giving the two sides any chance to talk.
>
> On the morning of the meeting day and prior to the meeting itself, the DWG
> removed the name: tag from the node, without making any direct contact with
> us.
>
> Anxious to have it back, we proposed during the meeting to have two
> separate nodes, tagged respectively in Hebrew and Arabic. However, the other
> side would agree on nothing less than equal rendering (they are explicitly
> interested in rendering only) of the two names, which implied that the
> Arabic node would be tagged as capital (analogous to Hebrew Jerusalem).
> However, it was pointed out that this would certainly create problems with
> mapnik on low zoom levels (where the two nodes would overlap and only one of
> them would show). Such a situation was not acceptable to the other side, and
> so we concluded the meeting by letting Mikel contact the mapnik team and
> come back with an answer.
>
> After coming back home, we actually started to have a discussion in our
> forum (see link above). Many of us couldn't participate in the meeting (only
> two of Israeli mappers were present there), and so expressed their opinion
> in the matter for the first time. Furthermore, we found out that the other
> side of the dispute is an organization with a clear political agenda related
> to Arab-Israeli conflict in general and Jerusalem in particular. Eventually
> we backed up from the agreement and requested further discussions with the
> other side. Mikel has stepped down as a mediator, admitting that he was too
> involved in this.
>
> We have asked the DWG to appoint a new mediator and to restore the
> situation to what it was prior to their intervention, until the dispute is
> settled. The new mediator was appointed, but the DWG categorically refused
> to revert their deletion and pressed us to come up with a solution  which
> the other side would agree o

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Markus Lindholm]

2011/10/5 Frederik Ramm :
> Data Working Group's position on this is that the community - meaning all
> who live and map there - need to come to an amicable resolution and as long
> as they don't, the node will either remain nameless, or it will have both a
> Hebrew and Arab name combined in the "name" tag. This suggestion was met
> with either silence or attempts to drag us into a political disussion, which
> we refused.
>
> We will not participiate in this discussion on talk but we'll be interested
> to hear what the wider community has to say.

About the Data Working Group, where can one find more information
about its activities? It doesn't seem to publish any minutes like the
other working groups do.

Regards
Markus

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[David Groom]

- Original Message - 
From: "Pieren" 

To: "OSM" 
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure




On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Lambert Carsten  
wrote:

As an outsider I really don't understand this. Is there a dispute on
what can be considered the local language in Jerusalem?


Yes, it is. And this happens on some other areas in the world. The
answer just saying "set up your own tile server" is not working
because the main Mapnik rendering is used as am international
reference, whatever we like it or not. The other answer saying "please
find an agreement locally or keep the name empty" is also not
acceptable impov. This type of answer will not satisfy the two local
communities, neither the rest of the world.
Perhaps the solution adopted by the belgians for their disputed areas
could be used as a model: put both versions in the tag 'name' (as
Frederik already suggested). Another way would be to check how the UN
is handling this on their own maps...

Pieren

how about adding the tag name:disputed = "Jerusalem / Al-Quds ", and then 
getting the OSM Mapnik layer to render the name:disputed tag in preference 
to either of the local language variants.


David 






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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Pieren]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Lambert Carsten  wrote:
> As an outsider I really don't understand this. Is there a dispute on
> what can be considered the local language in Jerusalem?

Yes, it is. And this happens on some other areas in the world. The
answer just saying "set up your own tile server" is not working
because the main Mapnik rendering is used as am international
reference, whatever we like it or not. The other answer saying "please
find an agreement locally or keep the name empty" is also not
acceptable impov. This type of answer will not satisfy the two local
communities, neither the rest of the world.
Perhaps the solution adopted by the belgians for their disputed areas
could be used as a model: put both versions in the tag 'name' (as
Frederik already suggested). Another way would be to check how the UN
is handling this on their own maps...

Pieren

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Richard Fairhurst]

Serge Wroclawski wrote:
> I'm writing this response for two reasons. First, because I want 
> you, Dimka, and the rest of the Israeli community to read it. 
> You're not representing your side very well based on the forums.

For reference, the thread cited is here:
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=13178

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Naming-dispute-over-Jerusalem-OSM-failure-tp6860427p6861557.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Ed Loach]

Lambert wrote:

> Personally I would say:  '.. OFFICIALLY used locally.'

Which is where it becomes political... Do you mean officially
according to Israel? Or official according to international
resolutions such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolut
ion_194
(see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem#Political_status )

(Note: I'm not taking sides in all this, but didn't realise there
was such a political aspect to Jerusalem until doing a bit of
research and thought the above made interesting reading for those
not aware of the history involved. Disclaimer: I'm not saying
Wikipedia is a reliable source).

Ed


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Lambert Carsten]

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 08:42:13 +0200
Frederik Ramm  wrote:

>, the node will either remain nameless, or
> it will have both a Hebrew and Arab name combined in the "name" tag.
> This suggestion was met with either silence or attempts to drag us
> into a political disussion, which we refused.
As an outsider I really don't understand this. Is there a dispute on
what can be considered the local language in Jerusalem?
 : "The default name
(occupying the 'name' tag without suffix) should be the name in
whatever language is used locally."
Personally I would say:  '.. OFFICIALLY used locally.'
See for example Brussels where the name tags have both Dutch and French
names and as suggested here by the DWG.
If Hebrew is the (official) local language this is not a tagging issue
but a rendering one as others have noted and in that case the
combined name tag would be 'wrong' (IMHO).

Lambert Carsten

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Richard Mann]

If they can't agree on the order if the two languages were combined (and I
suspect they can't), I would suggest trying to agree on a more-neutral third
language. Otherwise leave it blank.

If there's no agreement on the common name, then there's nothing to put in
the name tag.
Richard
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 10/05/2011 01:00 AM, dimka israeli wrote:

In my opinion, the handling of this dispute by OSM officials has up
until now been entirely
inappropriate, damaging for the Israeli OSM community and perhaps even
politically motivated.


Data Working Group's position on this is that the community - meaning 
all who live and map there - need to come to an amicable resolution and 
as long as they don't, the node will either remain nameless, or it will 
have both a Hebrew and Arab name combined in the "name" tag. This 
suggestion was met with either silence or attempts to drag us into a 
political disussion, which we refused.


We will not participiate in this discussion on talk but we'll be 
interested to hear what the wider community has to say.


Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Russ Nelson]

Please forgive if I cut Dimka's email down to two sentences.

dimka israeli writes:
 > Three months ago, several people who never before made edits to OSM, claimed 
 > that they cannot identify themselves with the map (and as a result, are not 
 > ready to contribute to it), because the name of the city of Jerusalem did 
 > not appear on the main OSM site in Arabic language with the same prominence 
 > as the Hebrew one.

 > (they actually made no edits in OSM since then).

Entirely leaving out the politics of the situation, it seems here that
something has been given up in exchange for ... nothing. If they
haven't edited in three months, it's clear that they never intended to
edit in the first place. I'd say to put it back and let the whining
resume ... only negotiate better next time.

-- 
--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] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[john whelan]

We have a similar problem in Ottawa with English and French.  Politically
French is given equal weight but reality is most maps have English street
names etc.

We also had one or two entries that combined English and French which meant
they were difficult to read and extremely difficult to search.  To find
Slater street one would have to enter name="rue Slater Street" not something
a casual user would immediately think of and few Anglophones know what the
correct translation for Crescent is, it happens to be croissant so Cara
Crescent becomes "croissant Cara Crescent"  also many Anglophones would
enter the address as Croissant Cara rather than croissant Cara which doesn't
help matters.

About 97% of entries were English only.  Today roughly 90+% of street names
have a name:fr value

What we have today uses name and name:fr.  Name is the English value the
French is in name:fr.  For rendering one solution is Maperitive, when used
with a local database it can display different languages according to the
rules used.  One nice feature is you can search the database for
"name:fr="rue Slater""

I have an off line version of Ottawa here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WkJzx5NffRv0TIQgCFFGTQzyqbQ9XDphSLqcjuM8wGM/edit?hl=en_US

I suggest you get a copy and see if you can't come up with a map that
displays in Hebrew, English and Arabic and is searchable.  The searchable
might be useful in that in order to use the functionality you need the
different languages in different fields.

It might also be an idea to see if someone can come up with a server that
renders in Arabic.

I'd also point at different renders, wheelmap.org is one,
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Strategic_working_group/Featured_routing_servicescontains
some others.

Stress the functionality and the fact that the basic mapping idea should be
to map but not for a specific render.

Best of luck.

Cheerio John


On 4 October 2011 20:24, Nathan Edgars II  wrote:

> On 10/4/2011 7:00 PM, dimka israeli wrote:
>
>> Anxious to have it back, we proposed during the meeting to have two
>> separate nodes, tagged respectively in Hebrew and Arabic. However, the
>> other side would agree on nothing less than equal rendering (they are
>> explicitly interested in rendering only) of the two names, which implied
>> that the Arabic node would be tagged as capital (analogous to Hebrew
>> Jerusalem).
>>
>
> Let's not kid ourselves; this is about rendering. When name:lang tags
> exist, the main purpose of the name tag is for rendering and other
> applications that make use of the name tag. A good application will allow
> the user to choose language and use that tag, with the name tag as a
> fallback.
>
> How are multilingual signs treated in general? I notice that many cities in
> China, Korea, and Japan have the English name in parentheses. Unless things
> have changed since http://www.evenatthedoors.com/**
> album/images/92%20Jerusalem%**20City%20Limits%20Sign.htmlwas
>  taken, the "on the ground" status is that the name is trilingual.
>
>
> __**_
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Ian]

It appears to me that the issue is resolved with the DWG's cange. If you 
care enough about this issue to have the map rendered in a specific way, 
then you (or the community around you) should set up a rendering toolchain 
that renders objects with your preferred language.

Doing so is not technically difficult and is well documented here:
http://weait.com/content/build-your-own-openstreetmap-server

The OSM Mapnik rendering is just one of many possible renderings of OSM 
data.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Nathan Edgars II]

On 10/4/2011 7:00 PM, dimka israeli wrote:

Anxious to have it back, we proposed during the meeting to have two
separate nodes, tagged respectively in Hebrew and Arabic. However, the
other side would agree on nothing less than equal rendering (they are
explicitly interested in rendering only) of the two names, which implied
that the Arabic node would be tagged as capital (analogous to Hebrew
Jerusalem).


Let's not kid ourselves; this is about rendering. When name:lang tags 
exist, the main purpose of the name tag is for rendering and other 
applications that make use of the name tag. A good application will 
allow the user to choose language and use that tag, with the name tag as 
a fallback.


How are multilingual signs treated in general? I notice that many cities 
in China, Korea, and Japan have the English name in parentheses. Unless 
things have changed since 
http://www.evenatthedoors.com/album/images/92%20Jerusalem%20City%20Limits%20Sign.html 
was taken, the "on the ground" status is that the name is trilingual.


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[Serge Wroclawski]

2011/10/4 dimka israeli :
> Hello to all,
>
> I would like to inform the OSM community about an ongoing dispute
> regarding the node "Jerusalem"
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/29090735.

Most of the hardcore community (the ones who are obsessive about the
project) already know about this dispute.

> In my opinion, the handling of this dispute by OSM officials has up until
> now been entirely
> inappropriate, damaging for the Israeli OSM community and  perhaps even
> politically motivated.

That's quite a mouthful, so let's break it down.

>  entirely inappropriate

This is rhetorical, see the end of this mail on why that's not helpful.

>  damaging for the Israeli OSM community

I think we can only speak about individuals, rather than others. Let's
try to stay grounded.

>  and  perhaps even  politically motivated.

Please, for everyone's sake, take a breather here. I know that you
feel hurt, but claiming that a dispute about a tag on a map is due to
a worldwide community project's hidden political motivations doesn't
help your cause. People don't like to be accused of things, and when
you're trying to get people to sympathize with you, accusing them
(even with conditioners like "perhaps") doesn't help.

> We believe that this situation sets a very dangerous precedent.  The DWG has
> obviously taken sides in this dispute and therefore proved itself
> non-trustworthy.   It allowed itself to be manipulated by people completely
> outside of OSM.

I've also read the forum and some of the problem is one of communication.

There's a lot of talk about meetings, and commitments, and agreements.
This may seem entirely rational if you live in Israel. It's not
anywhere else, not even in Washington, DC (where I live).

Such language actually detracts from the willingness of people to
listen, and makes even those who agree with you groan.

I'm writing this response for two reasons. First, because I want you,
Dimka, and the rest of the Israeli community to read it. You're not
representing your side very well based on the forums. The language of
international diplomacy comes off as confrontational.

And I'm writing for the rest of the OSM community to realize that
despite how Dimka is presenting himself, I think he, and the other
Israelis, are being honest and truthful here.

This is a real challenge. for everyone, but I suggest that we stick to
the facts, and not get into issues of politics and views, and other
issue which are sure to cause sides to harden their stances.

- Serge

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

[OSM-talk] Naming dispute over Jerusalem - OSM failure

[dimka israeli]

Hello to all,


 I would like to inform the OSM community about an ongoing dispute

 regarding the node "Jerusalem" 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/29090735.

 
In my opinion, the handling of this dispute by OSM officials has up until now 
been entirely

 inappropriate, damaging for the Israeli OSM community and  perhaps even 
politically motivated.

Since all official OSM representatives remain deaf to our arguments and pleas, 
effectively holding our entire community hostage with threats of ban, I saw no 
other choice but to send this letter.

Allow me to describe very briefly the essense of the dispute, sticking to facts 
only. More details can be found at this forum

 thread:
http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=13178.

The Jerusalem node had its name: tag changing several times by people who were 
not members of OSM Israel, for unknown (to us) reasons, and always changed back 
by us in order to keep up with our tagging standards. Those standards specify 
that all places inside Israel should be tagged with Hebrew as default, unless 
specific agreement otherwise. This convention was never disputed.  Last switch 
to Hebrew name of the Jerusalem node occured in December 2010, and no changes 
were made since then.
In addition to Jerusalem node, there exists a separate "place=suburb" node 
tagged "Al-Quds" in Arabic which represents mostly Arab-populated east 
neighborhoods of Jerusalem. This tagging was never in dispute.


Three months ago, several people who never before made edits to OSM, claimed 
that they cannot identify themselves with the map (and as a result, are not 
ready to contribute to it), because the name of the city of Jerusalem did not 
appear on the main OSM site in Arabic language with the same prominence as the 
Hebrew one. This claim was expressed not to the members of the Israeli 
community, but to Mikel Maron who happened to be in Jerusalem. He  set to 
organize a meeting between the two parties.

Mikel sent an email to the OSM Data Working Group where he apparently 
elaborated the situation, claiming that there has been an "edit war" over the 
node (a highly controversial claim per se). This was done prior to the meeting, 
without giving the two sides any chance to talk.

On the morning of the meeting day and prior to the meeting itself, the DWG 
removed the name: tag from the node, without making any direct contact with us.

Anxious to have it back, we proposed during the meeting to have two separate 
nodes, tagged respectively in Hebrew and Arabic. However, the other side would 
agree on nothing less than equal rendering (they are explicitly interested in 
rendering only) of the two names, which implied that the Arabic node would be 
tagged as capital (analogous to Hebrew Jerusalem). However, it was pointed out 
that this would certainly create problems with mapnik on low zoom levels (where 
the two nodes would overlap and only one of them would show). Such a situation 
was not acceptable to the other side, and so we concluded the meeting by 
letting Mikel contact the mapnik team and come back with an answer.

After coming back home, we actually started to have a discussion in our forum 
(see link above). Many of us couldn't participate in the meeting (only two of 
Israeli mappers were present there), and so expressed their opinion in the 
matter for the first time. Furthermore, we found out that the other side of the 
dispute is an organization with a clear political agenda related to 
Arab-Israeli conflict in general and Jerusalem in particular. Eventually we 
backed up from the agreement and requested further discussions with the other 
side. Mikel has stepped down as a mediator, admitting that he was too involved 
in this.

We have asked the DWG to appoint a new mediator and to restore the situation to 
what it was prior to their intervention, until the dispute is settled. The new 
mediator was appointed, but the DWG categorically refused to revert their 
deletion and pressed us to come up with a solution  which the other side would 
agree on. Although we expressed our willingness to discuss the situation with 
the other side in any online forum, they never answered us (they actually made 
no edits in OSM since then). Also, the new mediator is yet to show any sign of 
activity, despite our repeated requests during the last two months.

So,right now the handling of the dispute is stuck, no discussion is going on,  
the other side being virtually nonexistent.


We believe that this situation sets a very dangerous precedent.  The DWG
 has obviously taken sides in this dispute and therefore proved itself 
non-trustworthy.   It allowed itself to be 
manipulated by people completely outside of OSM.




Sincerely,

Dmitry B.


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