As long as state borders need to fulfil ground truth and broad
international recognition, which are in conflict with each other, this
inevitably requires arbitrary decisions.
It seems to me that the solution that agrees the most with our
principle of ground truth is to abandon the broad
> On 11 Dec 2018, at 14:41, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> no, you could ask a diplomat of a country (or other parts of their
> government) whom they recognize, or look up their public statements, these
> are not secondary sources like wikipedia seems to prefer (I think), but it
> would be
On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > Which would mean the end of OSM verifiability as intersubjective
> > verifiability based on observations in the real world in favor of
> > Wikipedia verifiability based on 'reliable sources'.
>
> no, you could ask a diplomat of a country
The involved parties typically want us to disseminate their truth and
only that*. It is not a "why not", the proposals are simply trying to
solve a different problem (that IMHO doesn't actually need to be solved,
and will simply lead to us never having any working boundaries at all,
but as said it
Am Di., 11. Dez. 2018 um 13:28 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann :
> On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> >
> > That’s why we need a method in OSM to say which countries recognize a
> > country/border, as it seems the most objective representation.
>
> Which would mean the end of
Am Di., 11. Dez. 2018 um 13:57 Uhr schrieb Simon Poole :
>
> As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down
> the road.
>
> We will still have to make choices and even if that is just to declare
> that a boundary is disputed (which for example is definitely not
> something
W dniu 11.12.2018 o 13:26, Christoph Hormann pisze:
> On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>> That’s why we need a method in OSM to say which countries recognize a
>> country/border, as it seems the most objective representation.
> Which would mean the end of OSM verifiability
On 2018-12-11 13:53, Simon Poole wrote:
> As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down
> the road.
>
> We will still have to make choices
Why? It would be better if OSM did not make choices, but represented
differing points of view equally, without expressing any kind
As Frederik pointed out a bit back, this is just kicking the can down
the road.
We will still have to make choices and even if that is just to declare
that a boundary is disputed (which for example is definitely not
something RU agrees with in the case of Crimea) and those choices will
be
On Tuesday 11 December 2018, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> That’s why we need a method in OSM to say which countries recognize a
> country/border, as it seems the most objective representation.
Which would mean the end of OSM verifiability as intersubjective
verifiability based on observations
sent from a phone
> On 11. Dec 2018, at 01:23, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
>
> Is it serious or some joke/hoax?
it seems to be a significant shift at least, from following the on the ground
rule as a general policy towards centralized top down decisions on a case by
case basis by the board.
sent from a phone
> On 11. Dec 2018, at 02:18, Andy Townsend wrote:
>
> Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AivEQmfPpk if you haven't already seen
> it for some of the gory detail.
Makes a good statement at the end: „Ultimately, what makes a country a country,
is if other countries
Is it serious or some joke/hoax?
Because making such decision would providing any justification at all would be
ridiculous.
10 Dec 2018, 17:55 by m...@rtijn.org:
>
> The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous
> situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working
Dear board,
Am 10.12.18 um 18:14 schrieb Tom Hughes:
> On 10/12/2018 16:55, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>
>> On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to
>> review the Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea.
>>
>> The Board decided that this decision is to be
On Monday 10 December 2018, Martijn van Exel wrote:
>
> A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks.
Transparency at work...
Like Tom i read this such as that you have decided on a desired result
but were not yet able to engineer a consistent reality around it.
Oh, the irony
On 10/12/2018 16:55, Martijn van Exel wrote:
On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review the
Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea.
The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous
situation, as laid out in the May 5,
Hi all,
On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review the
Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea.
The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous
situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to
17 matches
Mail list logo
