>> it is widely internationally recognised that Russia now controls Crimea.
When we talk about boundary recognition the meaning is completely different. The UK Government’s position on Crimea <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/overseas-business-risk-ukraine/overseas-business-risk-ukraine--2> : Both the G7 and EU have affirmed their condemnation, and *non-recognition, of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea* and we are implementing a strict policy of non-recognition with respect to Crimea/Sevastapol, in line with UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 Doing business in Crimea <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/doing-business-in-russia-and-ukraine-sanctions-latest> The UK government maintain *a strict policy of non-recognition *with respect to Crimea / Sevastopol, in line with UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262. UK businesses should be mindful of the increased commercial risks created by this situation. ... These measures imposed on EU citizens and businesses: call on international financial institutions to *refrain from financing any projects that explicitly or implicitly recognise the illegal annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol * сб, 24 лист. 2018 о 16:13 Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> пише: > On 23/11/2018 21:03, Tomas Straupis wrote: > > > Ok. So do I understand OSMF position is this: > > All the answers here are "my personal understanding of OSM's collective > position, based on many years to and fro in mailing lists, wiki pages, etc. > etc.". Some of the questions below are technical, some are political, some > have implications for how data is stored and some have implications for how > data is represented (and it's important to disconnect those last two). > Also, OSM is a very broad church and some people have very different views > about what we should record and how we should record it. > > > 1. There are no technical problems with having international > boundaries overlapping and representing official position of involved > countries. > > There are technical problems, in that things may be "double counted" - the > "total number of X in the world" will be higher if we count by overlapping > countries. However, often we're choosing the "least worst option" - the > one with fewest problems (technical and political), not the one with none. > > > 2. International boundaries DO sometimes overlap. > > > I'm not actually aware of a situation where countries have said "this bit > belongs equally to both of us" (I'd be interested to hear of any examples, > actually), though there are plenty of places where they say "I think it > belongs to me, and you think it belongs to you, but let's work together and > manage it jointly". > > > 3. OSMF is aware that overlapping boundaries would have satisfied > more users (especially LOCAL users). > > There's a clear split here between the views of people from Ukraine (and > other countries closer to Russia's borders) and mappers from elsewhere. > The former are saying "Ukraine was invaded and part was taken away by > force; maps should show it as part of Ukraine because that act was not > legal according to International law". The latter are saying "we have > always mapped what's on the ground, regardless of the legal situation". > > Essentially it's a political decision what the admin_level=2 boundaries in > OSM should reflect. There's no one answer that will please everyone - if > we said that admin_level=2 boundaries should show "the extent that each > country thinks that it should have regardless of actual control on the > ground" then we'd have to invent another boundary type for "actual borders" > that did tell people where they were crossing a patrolled frontier. > > Conversely, I personally don't think that there's a reason (subject to > verifiability, which isn't a problem here) why claims such as this > shouldn't be in OSM (so that people can make maps from them), just as long > as people can't confuse them with the areas that particular countries > actually control. Western Sahara is an example - > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2559126 . There was a discussion > (with mappers who'd been active in the area and in the OSM boundaries > forum) that decided that Morocco should be in OSM as the area that it > controls, and the SADR area as the area outside that. According to the UN, > Western Sahara should be a country, and if someone wants to create a map > based on OSM data that shows the boundary of Western Sahara, they can, > because that data is in OSM. > > It's important to remember this last point - anyone can, and is encouraged > to, make their own maps from OSM data. What you see in the "standard > style" at openstreetmap.org is just one possible rendering of many. If > you want to render OSM data without boundaries and then overlay a set of > boundaries on it, you can (see > https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/47007 for a worked > example). If you want to have different boundaries displayed for different > URLs or different audiences, you can do that too (and many consumers of OSM > data do exactly that). > > There are other technical options about how best to show de jure and de > facto boundaries. As another example have a look at > https://www.mapquest.com/ and browse to Western Sahara - there are at > least 3 different styles of boundaries shown there that represent de facto > and de jure country boundaries. Those are technical decisions made by the > people making those maps (in this case Mapbox, based on OSM data). > > > 4. Precedence is taken by "most widely internationally recognised > and best meets realities on the ground" where only second part is > actually important, so this sentence should be changed to "best meets > realities on the ground IRRESPECTIVE OF WIDE INTERNATIONAL > RECOGNITION". > > Frankly you're really not helping your argument by cherry-picking pieces > of text from > https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf > like that. For the avoidance of doubt the full sentence from which you > have quoted part of is: > > *"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." * > > It seems to me that it's the application of exactly that principle to the > Russia/Ukraine border that you're objecting to. - it is widely > internationally recognised that Russia now controls Crimea. By all means > lobby the developers of maps based on OSM data about how they show > particular countries to particular audiences, and ensure that (where > verifiable) data is contained within OSM to allow those maps to be made, > but please don't say that this decision went against the letter or the > spirit of that policy. Unfortunately, there are no easy solutions - as I > said near the top of this email, often we're choosing the "least worst > option" of all of the available ones. > > Best Regards, > > Andy Townsend (from the Data Working Group, but written in a personal > capacity) > > PS: If anyone would like any help with any of the technical stuff (setting > up a server, multiple sets of boundaries for multiple groups of users, > different languages) then please do just ask ( > https://help.openstreetmap.org is a good place to start). There are lots > of options and lots of resources out there, and despite all the list, diary > and forum posts I don't think I've seen anyone ask. > > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk