Crimea situation - on the ground

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
63 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Crimea situation - on the ground

dieterdreist
As most of you will know, the DWG on 14 Nov 2018 had reconsidered its original statement on Crimea from 5 June 2014, and decided to acknowledge that on the ground, Russia was controlling the territory and that the situation seemed fairly stable. On 10 December 2018, the OSMF board decided to return to the 2014 resolution. In its reasoning, board refers to the community as a whole ("The previous situation with the exception in place was obviously much more acceptable to the OSM community as a whole"), but also reaffirms that it supports the on-the-ground-rule: "

We recognize that a lot of work has gone into the current Disputed Area
Policy, and both DWG and LWG have assured us that the "on the ground
rule" generally works well to avoid and settle conflicts. We, therefore, do
not want to weaken that policy."

My belief is that the reason for the on-the-ground rule to exist, is actually solving problems like the one in Crimea, and that we are weakening our position as "neutral", global community, if we make any exceptions to the rule. While I fully support the 2014 DWG resolution for the situation of 2014 (indeed potentially unclear if it would be stable), I also agree that in 2018 DWG couldn't decide differently than how they did.

I therefore ask the current OSMF Board to reconsider the 2018 board decision and put the updated DWG statement from Nov 2018 into effect. This is not a question whether you believe, Crimea should belong to Ukraine or Russia, it is a principal question of creating together a truely impartial and indipendent map and adhering to our own standards.

Like the former OSMF board, the DWG and LWG, I do not want to weaken that policy.

Cheers
Martin



_________
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018-11-14_Crimea
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2014-06-05_Special_Crimea
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2019-February/005972.html

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

Imre Samu
> but also reaffirms that it supports the on-the-ground-rule

I suggest to extend our manifesto [1] with the word "emphatic"
( adding after the list:  Truthful, Legal, Verifiable, Relevant,    +Emphatic )

With adding the "empathy"  to the "on the ground rule"  ->  it is adding the extra layer of the meaning.

Without "empathy" - we can map "nesting locations of vulnerable species" - because of the cold logic of the "on the ground rule"
With "empathy" we can fix the side effects of cold logic, and we can make an "intelligent" decision  [2]

With "empathy"  - it is easy to solve the diversity problems.[4]
Without "empathy" - just with cold logic -  it is impossible.

With "empathy" - this sentence has a deeper meaning:
"OpenStreetMap values community cohesion over data perfection." [1] 

and this is important for every organisation/community:
"Empathy deserves its buzzy status, and leaders are wise to desire it for their businesses. But to succeed in making it part of their organization’s DNA, they must pay close attention to how cultures build and change — organically, collectively, and often from the bottom up."  [3]

And in the "Crimea situation"  the empathy add an extra complexity .. 
What is the real meaning of the "Our community is based on mutual respect, tolerance ..." [4]  in this case?


[2] Eugenia Cheng: "The Art of Logic: How to Make Sense in a World that Doesn't" 
[4] proposed "Diversity Statement" "Our community is based on mutual respect, tolerance ..."  ~ empathy

Best,
 Imre


Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> ezt írta (időpont: 2020. febr. 6., Cs, 12:42):
As most of you will know, the DWG on 14 Nov 2018 had reconsidered its original statement on Crimea from 5 June 2014, and decided to acknowledge that on the ground, Russia was controlling the territory and that the situation seemed fairly stable. On 10 December 2018, the OSMF board decided to return to the 2014 resolution. In its reasoning, board refers to the community as a whole ("The previous situation with the exception in place was obviously much more acceptable to the OSM community as a whole"), but also reaffirms that it supports the on-the-ground-rule: "

We recognize that a lot of work has gone into the current Disputed Area
Policy, and both DWG and LWG have assured us that the "on the ground
rule" generally works well to avoid and settle conflicts. We, therefore, do
not want to weaken that policy."

My belief is that the reason for the on-the-ground rule to exist, is actually solving problems like the one in Crimea, and that we are weakening our position as "neutral", global community, if we make any exceptions to the rule. While I fully support the 2014 DWG resolution for the situation of 2014 (indeed potentially unclear if it would be stable), I also agree that in 2018 DWG couldn't decide differently than how they did.

I therefore ask the current OSMF Board to reconsider the 2018 board decision and put the updated DWG statement from Nov 2018 into effect. This is not a question whether you believe, Crimea should belong to Ukraine or Russia, it is a principal question of creating together a truely impartial and indipendent map and adhering to our own standards.

Like the former OSMF board, the DWG and LWG, I do not want to weaken that policy.

Cheers
Martin



_________
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2018-11-14_Crimea
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes/DWG_2014-06-05_Special_Crimea
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2019-February/005972.html
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

General Discussion mailing list
Feb 6, 2020, 14:59 by [hidden email]:
Without "empathy" - we can map "nesting locations of vulnerable species" - because of the cold logic of the "on the ground rule"
I am OK with not mapping some objects (private features, rare birds, places of worship where given
religion is persecuted etc)

But I see no good reason to pretend that Russian invasion was not successful,

PS: Yes, the invasion was worrying, wrong, problematic and Russian government is
filled with abhorrent evil people - especially on the top.

It is not changing that they were clearly successful in the invasion.

I fully support applying on the ground rule here. OSM is not mapping world as it should be,
it is mapping it as it exists.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

Joseph Eisenberg
I also support the DWG's decision. It is bad policy for the board to
overrule the Data Working Group for political reasons, and in this
case it is clear that the situation on the ground has changed since
2014.

While I am opposed to Russia's actions, the data in Openstreetmap
should represent reality, rather than what we might prefer to be true.

- Joseph Eisenberg

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

Mario Frasca
In reply to this post by General Discussion mailing list
I see a linguistic problem … and people.

On 07/02/2020 05:27, Mateusz Konieczny via talk wrote:
> OSM is not mapping world as it should be,
> it is mapping it as it exists.

Russia has successfully invaded Crimea and considers it part of Russia.

but there still are Ukrainians living there, I suppose.  people who
speak a marginally different language with a couple of differences in
the alphabet.  (according to them, a completely different language.)

so one thing is the border, one other thing is toponyms.

a much more serious example of this is the Golan Heights.  try to find a
name in the area which shows there's Syrians living there!

which way does OSM manage to show impartiality?  or make a serious
attempt at it?

MF


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

Tomas Straupis
Hello

  Some important points here:

  1. On the ground rule has a number of different interpretations,
interpretation of "we check everything on the ground literally" is an
illusion of confirmation bias, especially when we talk about non
physical objects such as borders. 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". Therefore on the ground rule has NEVER
EXISTED, does not exist now and will never exist because it is simply
impractical. Therefore - FALSE BASE.

  2. OSMF is a SUPPORTING organisation, it has no authority to make
decisions on what to map and how. Therefore - NO AUTHORITY.

  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.

--
Tomas

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> Il giorno 7 feb 2020, alle ore 14:13, Tomas Straupis <[hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
> 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". Therefore on the ground rule has NEVER
> EXISTED, does not exist now and will never exist because it is simply
> impractical. Therefore - FALSE BASE.


the on the ground rule was set up to resolve difficult situations. While we would certainly prefer to have all borders surveyed on the ground, it isn’t currently the situation. Still, if there is a question about a specific thing, the situation on the ground is used to resolve it.
It’s neither a contradiction, nor is it a false base.


>
>  2. OSMF is a SUPPORTING organisation, it has no authority to make
> decisions on what to map and how. Therefore - NO AUTHORITY.


I agree with this, to some point. It is their rules. Ultimately the OpenStreetMap-Foundation is legally responsible for what they publish, so there might be situations where they will have to weigh different arguments and make a decision.


>
>  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.


it’s not about standing on the side of someone specific, it’s a general question of adhering to one’s own policy. I don’t buy the legal/financial risk issue, but if it was real, I believe we would have to take the risk, in favor of the map.

Please also note that the DWG statement has a paragraph which asks to map the Ukraine-Crimea border as disputed.

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

Tomas Straupis
2020-02-07, pn, 16:18 Martin Koppenhoefer rašė:
> the on the ground rule was set up to resolve difficult situations.

  So this rule is just for some specific small case(s) where standard
(legal) base is not suitable for somebody? This rule (its new
interpretation) was invented by a few without any alignment on how OSM
actually works.

> It’s neither a contradiction, nor is it a false base.

  It is a false base because if we would say that Crimea decision is
based on wide-spread and old OSM principle of X - then in would be
understandable. But X is not a wide-spread, it is even almost non
existent. So it is pointless, you can simply say "I decided this way
just because".

> it’s not about standing on the side of someone specific, it’s a general
> question of adhering to one’s own policy.

  There is no such policy as "ground truth" (interpretation used in
Crimea case) in real life (in real database or wide-spread practice of
how we map). It is a smoke screen and there is no point of "defending"
non-existant thing and raise this issue again as I'm totally sure it
will raise the same havoc it did last time.

  And "neutral" is current decision, because it supports both sides -
Ukraine and Moscow - equally.

--
Tomas

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

General Discussion mailing list
In reply to this post by Tomas Straupis



Feb 7, 2020, 14:09 by [hidden email]:
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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

Tomas Straupis
2020-02-07, pn, 17:18 Mateusz Konieczny via talk rašė:
>> 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?

  No, why should they? Ground rule (interpretations I know about) have
nothing in common with this case (except stating that mapping borders
is an exception).

>> Therefore on the ground rule has NEVER
>> EXISTED
> WAT? Are you claiming that on the ground rule is my
> hallucination? It certainly existed.

  Ground rule interpretation you're talking about has never existed.
Otherwise why is it not visible in the data?

> What kind of risk can be expected by specifying true fact
> that invasion succeed and Russia is controlling Crimea?

  Go through the posts of last attempt and you will get the info.
  Succeeded is when everybody (or at least almost everybody)
recognises the anschluss.

> Do you propose to map Tibet as independent country,

  Well... Yes :-D China communist party does not like OSM anyway.
  Note, here situation is quite different from Crimea, unfortunately
almost all nations do recognise that Tibet is currently controlled by
China since the occupation in 1950.

> delete Auschwitz concentration camps from the map,
> etc because it is an evidence that some evil things happened?

  Sooo... you're proposing to map Crimea as belonging to Moscow and
add a name "Occupied Ukrainian Crimea"? ;-)

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Tomas Straupis
Hi,

I don't want to discuss this issue in detail but the on-the-ground rule
is an important cornerstone of what we do in OSM. If anyone wants to use
the Crimea situation (and any possible exceptions made from the OTG rule
because of it) to get rid of the OTG rule, or if anyone because of
political reasons wants to argue away the OTG rule ("has never existed"
etc.etc.) then I would fiercely oppose that.

Whatever your feelings are regarding Russia and Crimea (I notice that
Tomas hails from a country sandwiched between Russia and a Russian
exclave where being illegally occupied by Russia is a realistic fear,
whereas Martin happily fans the flames from a safe distance of over
2,000km away from the nearest Russian tank) - don't sacrifice the OTG rule.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

Tomas Straupis
Note, that I'm opposing OTG rule application to non-physical objects
as that is philosophically impossible as well as too unpracticall.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

Mikel Maron-3
There's two different concepts at play, that OSM does not currently tag well when in conflict. There's national sovereignty, which is a political concept which in large part depends on international recognition. And there's de facto control, which could result from military actions. For most of the world, these two are in sync. In Crimea, they are not, and there is a dispute. 

There are so many varieties of disputed territories in the world, it's hard to come up with a system that works for every single situation. And tagging structures for disputes could certainly get complicated. However, I believe that the OSM community could come up with something that works well enough for Crimea, that it would be broadly agreed that the situation is represented accurately. 

That tagging may not work for every single dispute in the world, but the tags could evolve as well as they are implemented in practice.

-Mikel



On Friday, February 7, 2020, 01:38:23 PM EST, Tomas Straupis <[hidden email]> wrote:


Note, that I'm opposing OTG rule application to non-physical objects
as that is philosophically impossible as well as too unpracticall.


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

stevea
In reply to this post by Tomas Straupis
Without touching the Crimea specifically, I'd like to chime in that "on-the-ground" (OTG) is a good rule, but in reality it must be approached more like a goal to be achieved where it can be, as we must acknowledge that realistically, this rule both cannot be and is not applied everywhere under all circumstances.  That is the simple truth and OSM should not pretend otherwise.  Maybe we need to tighten up our language about how we define OTG to better acknowledge this, clearly and explicitly.

A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which frequently do not exist "on the ground," but our map data would be remiss if it excluded these.  So we do our best to include boundaries even as they are not on-the-ground, but exist in both de pure and de facto ways in the real world, so OSM expresses them.  Yes, when boundaries are disputed, this is difficult:  there is no way around that and it isn't unique to OSM.  I like Mikel's recent suggestion positing that OSM can better develop tagging that accommodates a wide array of disputes, as we do have plastic tagging and it can evolve well.

Other examples include large bodies of water and mountain ranges.  I've lived on the Pacific coast most of my life and been to dozens of beaches, but never once on any beach have I seen a sign which reads "Pacific Ocean."  Same with no signs at the edge of or in the middle of "Rocky Mountains" or "The Alps."  (I've been, and I haven't seen).  Yet, OSM maps oceans and mountain ranges.  How do we know their names without anything on the ground?  It's a tricky question which usually starts with some hand-waving (especially for enormous, major-chunk-of-planet-sized entities like oceans), and progresses to "well, everybody simply KNOWS that's the Pacific Ocean..." and we are faced with OTG and an inherent contradiction of what we should do, then we do it anyway.  (Name something without having a solid OTG reality).

To a lesser (weaker) extent, OTG flexibility might also apply to newly developed routes (bicycle routes are a good example) as these may not be signed (or well signed), yet a government (whether local, state or national) expresses these as real (on a public map — just as with a boundary) and poorly signs or doesn't sign them at all in the real world.  OSM uses "unsigned_ref" to denote these, but it's a fuzzy semantic that doesn't have wide agreement or even consensus.  I have seen the opinion that these shouldn't be in OSM at all, which seems a shame for things which many local users (of a bike route decreed by a government, for example) agree do "exist," yet there isn't any OTG evidence for this.  While one tenet of OSM is "don't copy from other maps," when the only evidence that something exists is ONLY from a PUBLIC map (yielding us ODbL permission), we have to reconcile that with OTG.  Today, we don't do that very well.

So, rather than being fully enthusiastic about the absolute application of OTG (we simply can't), let's realize that it is a good guideline which should be followed where it can, yet it must include some flexibility which allows for exceptions.  I haven't seen that said (here, yet, perhaps it is elsewhere) and I believe it is important to be explicit about it.

SteveA
California
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

Mikel Maron-3
Godo point SteveA. If I had it to do over again, when I developed this in 2007 for our first edit war over city names in Northern Cyprus, I would have name this the "On the Ground **Guideline**" rather Rule.

* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron


On Friday, February 7, 2020, 02:15:11 PM EST, stevea <[hidden email]> wrote:


Without touching the Crimea specifically, I'd like to chime in that "on-the-ground" (OTG) is a good rule, but in reality it must be approached more like a goal to be achieved where it can be, as we must acknowledge that realistically, this rule both cannot be and is not applied everywhere under all circumstances.  That is the simple truth and OSM should not pretend otherwise.  Maybe we need to tighten up our language about how we define OTG to better acknowledge this, clearly and explicitly.

A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which frequently do not exist "on the ground," but our map data would be remiss if it excluded these.  So we do our best to include boundaries even as they are not on-the-ground, but exist in both de pure and de facto ways in the real world, so OSM expresses them.  Yes, when boundaries are disputed, this is difficult:  there is no way around that and it isn't unique to OSM.  I like Mikel's recent suggestion positing that OSM can better develop tagging that accommodates a wide array of disputes, as we do have plastic tagging and it can evolve well.

Other examples include large bodies of water and mountain ranges.  I've lived on the Pacific coast most of my life and been to dozens of beaches, but never once on any beach have I seen a sign which reads "Pacific Ocean."  Same with no signs at the edge of or in the middle of "Rocky Mountains" or "The Alps."  (I've been, and I haven't seen).  Yet, OSM maps oceans and mountain ranges.  How do we know their names without anything on the ground?  It's a tricky question which usually starts with some hand-waving (especially for enormous, major-chunk-of-planet-sized entities like oceans), and progresses to "well, everybody simply KNOWS that's the Pacific Ocean..." and we are faced with OTG and an inherent contradiction of what we should do, then we do it anyway.  (Name something without having a solid OTG reality).

To a lesser (weaker) extent, OTG flexibility might also apply to newly developed routes (bicycle routes are a good example) as these may not be signed (or well signed), yet a government (whether local, state or national) expresses these as real (on a public map — just as with a boundary) and poorly signs or doesn't sign them at all in the real world.  OSM uses "unsigned_ref" to denote these, but it's a fuzzy semantic that doesn't have wide agreement or even consensus.  I have seen the opinion that these shouldn't be in OSM at all, which seems a shame for things which many local users (of a bike route decreed by a government, for example) agree do "exist," yet there isn't any OTG evidence for this.  While one tenet of OSM is "don't copy from other maps," when the only evidence that something exists is ONLY from a PUBLIC map (yielding us ODbL permission), we have to reconcile that with OTG.  Today, we don't do that very well.

So, rather than being fully enthusiastic about the absolute application of OTG (we simply can't), let's realize that it is a good guideline which should be followed where it can, yet it must include some flexibility which allows for exceptions.  I haven't seen that said (here, yet, perhaps it is elsewhere) and I believe it is important to be explicit about it.

SteveA
California

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

Yuri Astrakhan-2
In reply to this post by stevea
Thanks Stevea, I really liked your examples. And thank you Mikel - I agree. OSM already has substantial amount of non-physical but relevant information (e.g. many IDs pointing to external registries), and as Stevea points out - even naming for something local could be contradictory (e.g. two fairly large groups of people could refer to the same place/object by different names).  I also think OTG should be a general guideline/goal, simply because map could not be complete without some of that information, and the map should be able to reflect difference of opinions to some "reasonable" degree (an intentionally vague term).

On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 2:15 PM stevea <[hidden email]> wrote:
Without touching the Crimea specifically, I'd like to chime in that "on-the-ground" (OTG) is a good rule, but in reality it must be approached more like a goal to be achieved where it can be, as we must acknowledge that realistically, this rule both cannot be and is not applied everywhere under all circumstances.  That is the simple truth and OSM should not pretend otherwise.  Maybe we need to tighten up our language about how we define OTG to better acknowledge this, clearly and explicitly.

A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which frequently do not exist "on the ground," but our map data would be remiss if it excluded these.  So we do our best to include boundaries even as they are not on-the-ground, but exist in both de pure and de facto ways in the real world, so OSM expresses them.  Yes, when boundaries are disputed, this is difficult:  there is no way around that and it isn't unique to OSM.  I like Mikel's recent suggestion positing that OSM can better develop tagging that accommodates a wide array of disputes, as we do have plastic tagging and it can evolve well.

Other examples include large bodies of water and mountain ranges.  I've lived on the Pacific coast most of my life and been to dozens of beaches, but never once on any beach have I seen a sign which reads "Pacific Ocean."  Same with no signs at the edge of or in the middle of "Rocky Mountains" or "The Alps."  (I've been, and I haven't seen).  Yet, OSM maps oceans and mountain ranges.  How do we know their names without anything on the ground?  It's a tricky question which usually starts with some hand-waving (especially for enormous, major-chunk-of-planet-sized entities like oceans), and progresses to "well, everybody simply KNOWS that's the Pacific Ocean..." and we are faced with OTG and an inherent contradiction of what we should do, then we do it anyway.  (Name something without having a solid OTG reality).

To a lesser (weaker) extent, OTG flexibility might also apply to newly developed routes (bicycle routes are a good example) as these may not be signed (or well signed), yet a government (whether local, state or national) expresses these as real (on a public map — just as with a boundary) and poorly signs or doesn't sign them at all in the real world.  OSM uses "unsigned_ref" to denote these, but it's a fuzzy semantic that doesn't have wide agreement or even consensus.  I have seen the opinion that these shouldn't be in OSM at all, which seems a shame for things which many local users (of a bike route decreed by a government, for example) agree do "exist," yet there isn't any OTG evidence for this.  While one tenet of OSM is "don't copy from other maps," when the only evidence that something exists is ONLY from a PUBLIC map (yielding us ODbL permission), we have to reconcile that with OTG.  Today, we don't do that very well.

So, rather than being fully enthusiastic about the absolute application of OTG (we simply can't), let's realize that it is a good guideline which should be followed where it can, yet it must include some flexibility which allows for exceptions.  I haven't seen that said (here, yet, perhaps it is elsewhere) and I believe it is important to be explicit about it.

SteveA
California
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

Johnparis
In reply to this post by Mikel Maron-3
I made such a proposal a while ago; it got majority approval but not the supermajority required. At the time, I said I don't think a supermajority is possible. However, my original proposal would, I believe, lend considerable strength to the OTG rule, especially in hot spots like Crimea.


On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 8:02 PM Mikel Maron <[hidden email]> wrote:
There's two different concepts at play, that OSM does not currently tag well when in conflict. There's national sovereignty, which is a political concept which in large part depends on international recognition. And there's de facto control, which could result from military actions. For most of the world, these two are in sync. In Crimea, they are not, and there is a dispute. 

There are so many varieties of disputed territories in the world, it's hard to come up with a system that works for every single situation. And tagging structures for disputes could certainly get complicated. However, I believe that the OSM community could come up with something that works well enough for Crimea, that it would be broadly agreed that the situation is represented accurately. 

That tagging may not work for every single dispute in the world, but the tags could evolve as well as they are implemented in practice.

-Mikel



On Friday, February 7, 2020, 01:38:23 PM EST, Tomas Straupis <[hidden email]> wrote:


Note, that I'm opposing OTG rule application to non-physical objects
as that is philosophically impossible as well as too unpracticall.


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

Colin Smale
In reply to this post by Mikel Maron-3

Many things we think of as "facts" are in fact somewhat subjective. Things have a name or some attribute "according to" some authority. London "is not" London, it is "called" London according to local people, government etc. But the same place is "called" Londres, according to a different authority, namely French-speakers; both points of view are equally valid, but only within their intended context.

In the case of Crimea, two different authorities have different views of the jurisdiction to which it belongs. That is a fact, that we can safely map. We can represent the border in one place "according to Russia" and in another place "according to Ukraine" without taking sides. It is then down to the renderer/consumer which source is preferred. If we don't stop taking sides, well, we are taking sides - whatever our arguments to support our choice. We will never "win" that one.

I am applying a bit of data management here; every data item should have a provenance, value domain, validity period etc. The "truth" is always only relative to a particular frame of reference.




_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

ebel

It is true that government A might have one opinion, and government B
might have another, and Provisional Autonomous Republic of C might have
another opinion.

But there can be another way. We go there, and we see what nearly
everyone there calls it. We look at the words on the signs. We look at
the name of the organisations based there (“Transport for London”). We
walk down the street and ask 100 people what the name of this city is.
We listen into conversations there, and see if there's a majority name
that people use when they talk to each other about the city

And the answer to that is “London”.

In OSM, we could tag that "the opinion of the UK government is that this
city is called London", and "the opinion of the French government is
that this this city is called Londres", and "the commonly used name for
this city by the vast majority of people who live there is London".

We should map the third option with the `name` tag.

On 07.02.20 20:56, Colin Smale wrote:

> Many things we think of as "facts" are in fact somewhat subjective.
> Things have a name or some attribute "according to" some authority.
> London "is not" London, it is "called" London according to local people,
> government etc. But the same place is "called" Londres, according to a
> different authority, namely French-speakers; both points of view are
> equally valid, but only within their intended context.
>
> In the case of Crimea, two different authorities have different views of
> the jurisdiction to which it belongs. That is a fact, that we can safely
> map. We can represent the border in one place "according to Russia" and
> in another place "according to Ukraine" without taking sides. It is then
> down to the renderer/consumer which source is preferred. If we don't
> stop taking sides, well, we are taking sides - whatever our arguments to
> support our choice. We will never "win" that one.
>
> I am applying a bit of data management here; every data item should have
> a provenance, value domain, validity period etc. The "truth" is always
> only relative to a particular frame of reference.

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

OTG rule, borders & mountains existing | Re: Crimea situation - on the ground

ebel
In reply to this post by stevea
On 07.02.20 20:12, stevea wrote:
> A well-known example is (national, other) boundaries, which
> frequently do not exist "on the ground,"
National borders don't exist on the ground? huh? Have you ever actually
_crossed_ an international border? I assure you they exist on the
ground. From large infrastructure, to changes in the paint colour on
roads, one can nearly always *see* where a border is.

> Other examples include large bodies of water and mountain ranges.
> I've lived on the Pacific coast most of my life and been to dozens of
> beaches, but never once on any beach have I seen a sign which reads
> "Pacific Ocean."  Same with no signs at the edge of or in the middle
> of "Rocky Mountains" or "The Alps."  (I've been, and I haven't seen).
> Yet, OSM maps oceans and mountain ranges.  How do we know their names
> without anything on the ground?
We ask people there. We look at books, at maps, at whether there is a
detailed Wikipedia article on the topic, do are travel books published
that refer to this area as that, do organisations that cover that area
use that term. We look to see if the name is _used in reality_.

That's the "on the ground rule". IMO "on the ground" refers to
"observable reality".

_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
1234