Feb 7, 2020, 14:09 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 1. On the ground rule has a number of different interpretations > Maybe. Is any of this interpretations leading to conclusion that Ukraine is de facto controlling Crimea? > interpretation of "we check everything on the ground literally" is an > illusion of confirmation bias > Noone claims that. Noticeable part of mapping is using aerial images imports. > Anybody can look at the database and > you'll see that absolute majority of such data is taken from legal > documents, other maps (including ortophotographic maps), not from > observations "on the ground". > In many cases it is not necessary to apply it - it is used where multiple sources conflict. > Therefore on the ground rule has NEVER > EXISTED > WAT? Are you claiming that on the ground rule is my hallucination? It certainly existed. > , does not exist now and will never exist because it is simply > impractical. Therefore - FALSE BASE. > In many cases it is not necessary to apply it - it is used where multiple sources conflict. > 2. OSMF is a SUPPORTING organisation, it has no authority to make > decisions on what to map and how. Therefore - NO AUTHORITY. > In such case discussing on mailing list is a perfect place to do this. > 3. Standing on the side of Moscow on this issue will AGAIN put > OpenStreetMap in the target of some EU, US and Worldwide > organisations. Therefore - LEGAL/FINANCIAL RISK. > [citation needed] What kind of risk can be expected by specifying true fact that invasion succeed and Russia is controlling Crimea? Do you propose to map Tibet as independent country, delete Auschwitz concentration camps from the map, etc because it is an evidence that some evil things happened?
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
