Borders are almost invisible on the ground either, at least in civilized countries.
And if we just decided to leave out all country borders..<humour>...in a utopic effort to re-unite the world ? </humour>
Wouldn't that be inline with the Free Map thought....? Gert On 23-11-2018 16:34, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
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 whole thing.On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 2:24 AM Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org <mailto:frede...@remote.org>> wrote:Hi, On 23.11.2018 01:42, Yuri Astrakhan wrote: > One idea (perhaps this should go into a separete thread): There already is a separate thread over on the tagging list started just a couple of weeks ago. I suggest that would be a good place to continue the discussion. Being able to map different claims is certainly interesting, in so far as they are verifiable (which surprisingly often is not the case). But all that's already been mentioned over at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-October/040333.html 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 to be. And judging from how this decision is blown out of proportion ("OMG OSM SUPPORTS TERRORISTS!") I am sure that people would display exactly the same outrage when discussing which one of a large set of mapped claims gets the "default" flag. > I especially appreciate 4.2 -- the fact that this decision is very bad for the data users -- I think you have misread Victor's 4.2 which essentially says that data users currently have to make up their own boundaries anyway and that therefore this decision does not *help* them. He does not say that it is good or bad, just that it does not improve an already-bad situation. As for whether > DWG has gone too far into the political landscape - something I hope it did not intend to do. let me quote from the DWG statement - again: "The Data Working Group takes no stance on if Russia's control is legal or not, as that is not within our scope." The DWG has simply applied a policy that has existed in OSM since before Crimea's annexation. That policy was written by LWG and approved by the OSMF board in 2013 and has been applied many, many times since and it has generally worked well for OSM. It certainly can be discussed and improved but that needs to be on a general level, and not tacking on an "Ukraine exemption" to the rule. Bye Frederik-- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org<mailto:frede...@remote.org> ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
-- Independent Expert on CE marking Harmonised Standards (HAS-) Consultant @ European Commission for RED and EMC EMC Consultant Electrical Safety Consultant
<<attachment: g_gremmen.vcf>>
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
