2018-11-23, pn, 18:57 Andy Townsend rašė:
> Where that best matches the situation on the ground about who has
> control, yes.
Ok. So do I understand OSMF position is this:
1. There are no technical problems with having international
boundaries overlapping and representing official position of
On 23/11/2018 16:36, Tomas Straupis wrote:
2018-11-23, pn, 18:23 Andy Townsend rašė:
Yuri, I suspect that literally every statement that the DWG has made
throughout this process has said exactly the opposite of what you've
just suggested that we said.
You're saying DWG position is that it IS
2018-11-23, pn, 18:23 Andy Townsend rašė:
> Yuri, I suspect that literally every statement that the DWG has made
> throughout this process has said exactly the opposite of what you've
> just suggested that we said.
You're saying DWG position is that it IS acceptable to have
overlapping country p
On 23/11/2018 15:34, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
I suspect the "default" is what the community took the main issue
with. DWG essentially declaring that there must be a single truth for
non-overlapping country borders is what seems to have caused all
this. Simply saying that every country can defi
This is a boring discussion, and only triggered by what should be out of
OSM : National Claims.
Borders are almost invisible on the ground either, at least in civilized
countries.
And if we just decided to leave out all country borders.in a
utopic effort to re-unite the world ?
Wouldn
Frederik,
I suspect the "default" is what the community took the main issue with.
DWG essentially declaring that there must be a single truth for
non-overlapping country borders is what seems to have caused all this.
Simply saying that every country can define their own would have averted
this who
2018-11-23, pn, 11:19 Oleksiy Muzalyev rašė:
> The topic of territorial claims is very complicated, long lasting, and
> painful. It involves not only such relatively remote and insignificant
> cases as Hans Island, Sudan, Croatia, Crimea, Pakistan, etc. cases, but
> also the industrial developed l
The topic of territorial claims is very complicated, long lasting, and
painful. It involves not only such relatively remote and insignificant
cases as Hans Island, Sudan, Croatia, Crimea, Pakistan, etc. cases, but
also the industrial developed lands. For example, the Reconquista [1] in
the USA
On 22/11/2018 18:53, Victor Shcherb wrote:
In that case I would actually support idea of deleting all country
boundaries to avoid this question completely.
There are numerous sets of data within OSM that are disputed and one
'controlling body' or another would prefer was not published at all.
Good points, Victor! Thanks for sharing your opinion.
You've just demonstrated how DWG could have started the discussion.
Current discussion (not only this topic but all the messages on OSM
lists.*, OSM forum, OSM diaries, Twitter etc) raises the question about the
DWG role in OSM. While expected
> I fear that this is only "kicking the can down the road" though because
> we'd likely have - just as we have with names - one "default" set of
> boundaries where we say "that's the one you get if you don't ask for any
> particular one", and the fight would then be on which one that is going
"d
11 matches
Mail list logo
