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 boundaries is more profound and ubiquitous
than it may seem at first sight. This topic is controversial and
complicated, and Rana Dasgupta's analyses provides some good
starting-point insights.
Best regards,
Oleksiy
On 21.10.18 16:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
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 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
sensitive. Currently, we record one set that, in OpenStreetMap
contributor opinion, is most widely internationally recognised and
best meets realities on the ground, generally meaning physical control.”
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.
<https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf>pdf
When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the
Ucraine in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199
As many might know, the current boundary situation for Crimea was
frozen 4 years ago “for a short time” by the DWG and so I asked them
about their current position 2 months ago, and after I got no reply,
tried to remind them 5 weeks ago, but have not yet gotten any reply,
so I am now opening this thread here.
IMHO, for consistency and credibility, we should either recognize that
Russia is actually controlling Crimea, or we should update the
disputed borders information. As I believe the general concept of
ground truth for admin boundaries was a good idea, I would tend to the
former.
I also believe the actual situation has already been ignored for too
long. When the thing is still dynamic or/and we’re in the middle of a
conflict it can be wise to step back and see for some time how things
are evolving, but 4 years are a lot of time, something like one year
would seem more reasonable.
What do you think?
Cheers, Martin
sent from a phone
Begin forwarded message:
*From:* Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com
<mailto:dieterdre...@gmail.com>>
*Date:* 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST
*To:* d...@osmfoundation.org <mailto:d...@osmfoundation.org>
*Subject:* *DWG policy on Crimea*
Dear members of the DWG,
as of this question in the help forum:
https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65436/what-is-the-current-position-of-the-dataworkinggroup-on-crimea
I kindly invite you to reconsider and eventually update your position
on the situation in Crimea.
As you have stated in 2014, this should not be the long term way to
deal with the situation, and short term is probably coming to an end.
There is clear guidance by the OSMF board how to deal with disputed
boundaries (as the situation seems to be more stable than some would
have liked).
My motivation is not promoting the Russian point of view, but to act
predictably and consistent wrt sensible topics.
Thank you,
cheers,
Martin
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk