Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

On 23/10/18 03:24, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: 22. Oct 2018 16:59 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl : On 2018-10-22 16:34, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: I strongly disagree, we map reality. There is no one true reality, only perceptions. There is both a true

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

sent from a phone > On 23. Oct 2018, at 11:06, Christoph Hormann wrote: > > I think that would not be verifiable. Different political fractions > often even have different opinions on the extent of their country. OSM > is not a place to record a spectrum of opinions on political goals and

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

This thread has strayed rather far afield from the original question, which was whether the OSM depiction of Crimea corresponds to the OSMF policy. It seems clear to me that it does not. I would suggest that the depiction of Northern Cyprus does not correspond to the policy either. The actual

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Paul Johnson writes: > Not to mention that the situation of a country claiming territory that it > physically controls, but only it recognizes, is also a relatively rare > thing this decade. Playing it conservatively in the "Russia claims Crimea > and controls it, but unilaterally and by force

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

On Tuesday 23 October 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Agreed. I would be tempted to say, however, that if a country > requires a certain boundary depiction by law, like e.g. India and > China do, then that's the same level of verifiability like that > country's internal boundaries for which we also

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Hi, On 23.10.2018 11:06, Christoph Hormann wrote: > I think that would not be verifiable. Different political fractions > often even have different opinions on the extent of their country. OSM > is not a place to record a spectrum of opinions Agreed. I would be tempted to say, however, that

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

23. Oct 2018 08:57 by frede...@remote.org : > It would however be interesting to develop a tagging scheme that lets us > not only record "this border is disputed" but also "this is the extent > of country X according to country Y", which we currently don't have. >

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

On Tuesday 23 October 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > It would however be interesting to develop a tagging scheme that lets > us not only record "this border is disputed" but also "this is the > extent of country X according to country Y", which we currently don't > have. I think that would not be

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Hi, the Crimea issue is currently being discussed in DWG. Regarding the wider question of boundaries, here is our policy on disputed boundaries https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf This policy is not likely to change any time soon. It would however

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 7:29 PM Greg Troxel wrote: > Yuri Astrakhan writes: > > > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny < > matkoni...@tutanota.com> > > wrote: > > > >> I think a country relation should describe how the specific country > think > >> of its borders. So if two

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Yuri Astrakhan writes: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think >> of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two >> relations will overlap. >> >> That is absurd and

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

The situation with Crimea is not clear-cut. It is kind of complicated. For instance, the climate in Crimea is very dry, that is why the water from the river Dnieper had been transferred to Crimea by an immense artificial North Crimean Canal [1]. Now the Dnieper water is not sold to Crimea any

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

22. Oct 2018 16:59 by colin.sm...@xs4all.nl : > > On 2018-10-22 16:34, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> >> I strongly disagree, we map reality. >> > > There is no one true reality, only perceptions. > There is both a true reality and our biased interpretation of

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

On 2018-10-22 16:34, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I strongly disagree, we map reality. There is no one true reality, only perceptions. Which reality takes precedence in your mind, may not be the same for everyone. Reality is subjective. What is the test to apply to decide whether a point is

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

22. Oct 2018 15:51 by yuriastrak...@gmail.com : > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <> matkoni...@tutanota.com > > > wrote: > >> >>> I think a country relation should describe how the specific country

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

22. Oct 2018 16:17 by dieterdre...@gmail.com : > Am Mo., 22. Okt. 2018 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Yuri Astrakhan <> > yuriastrak...@gmail.com > >: > >> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <>> >> matkoni...@tutanota.com

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Am Mo., 22. Okt. 2018 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Yuri Astrakhan < yuriastrak...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think >> of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think > of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two > relations will overlap. > > That is absurd and conflict with OSM rule to map what

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Can you summarize parts of this article (5k+ words, in "long read" section) that are relevant totagging of Russian and Ukrainian border in the Crimea? 22. Oct 2018 00:44 by oleksiy.muzal...@bluewin.ch : > > Hi Martin, > > Before

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

21. Oct 2018 23:19 by yuriastrak...@gmail.com : > I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think of > its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two > relations will overlap. That is absurd and conflict with

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Hi Martin, Before continuing this discussion further, I would advise to read the amazing article "The demise of the nation state" by Rana Dasgupta available via this link: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta The issue of national state

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two relations will overlap. While not ideal, this is preferable for many data consumers - when generating a map, one always has to consider whom it is

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

21. Oct 2018 15:12 by dieterdre...@gmail.com : > Therefore we can all be satisfied there is clear guidance from the board how > to deal with this: the local situation determines how we map, and the OSMF is > explicit here: “National borders are particularly

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

> When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199 And part of Russia: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60189#map=6/45.014/33.873=C Imre Martin Koppenhoefer ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. 21., V, 15:15): >

Re: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

, dikkeknodel Van: Martin Koppenhoefer Verzonden: Sunday, October 21, 2018 3:12:03 PM Aan: talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea Dear all, we all know how sensible the topic of disputed boundaries can be (they are not necessarily

[OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Dear all, we all know how sensible the topic of disputed boundaries can be (they are not necessarily a big problem, many boundary disputes like between Italy and France about the summit of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco, have little bearing on the actual life of people). Therefore we can all be