I think you have expressed your opinion but unfortunately whilst difficult for you to accept traditionally OSM maps a certain way and has done for sometime even though many governments and others would wish we did something else.
The world isn't perfect, but from a pragmatic point of view I think OpenStreetMap tagging the way it does works and does draw attention to what is happening on the ground. Cheerio John On Tue, 20 Nov 2018, 6:11 am Tomas Straupis <tomasstrau...@gmail.com wrote: > 2018-11-20, an, 12:42 Elena ``of Valhalla'' rašė: > > looking at a map where Crimea is part of Ukraine may lead people to plan > > a trip to it, only to be stopped and possibly questioned. > > But going to Crimea without Ukrainian visa (and not via Ukraine > controlled territory) would have legal consequences. > > > Most importantly, however, having Crimea as part of Ukraine on a map > > that shows what's on the ground would lead people to think that the > > illegal invasion has been resolved and everything is back to normal. > > This, if I understand correctly, would be exactly the opposite of what > > you want. > > Showing Crimea as part of Russia would also lead people to think > that the illegal invasion is over, everything was "legalised" and > issue settled, which is exactly the opposite of the reality. > > I want as much peace as possible. The previous solution to include > Crimea in both while not ideal had a ~balance between the two sides. > And now, for unknown reasons, this was changed to give all candies to > one side (not the one supported by absolute majority of the world) > introducing unnecessary negative effects. The matter of Crimea was > more or less calm in OSM before this decision. > > -- > Tomas > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
