Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

dieterdreist
Dear all,

we all know how sensible the topic of disputed boundaries can be (they are not necessarily a big problem, many boundary disputes like between Italy and France about the summit of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco, have little bearing on the actual life of people).

Therefore we can all be satisfied there is clear guidance from the board how to deal with this: the local situation determines how we map, and the OSMF is explicit here: “National borders are particularly sensitive. 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.”


When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199

As many might know, the current boundary situation for Crimea was frozen 4 years ago “for a short time” by the DWG and so I asked them about their current position 2 months ago, and after I got no reply, tried to remind them 5 weeks ago, but have not yet gotten any reply, so I am now opening this thread here.

IMHO, for consistency and credibility, we should either recognize that Russia is actually controlling Crimea, or we should update the disputed borders information. As I believe the general concept of ground truth for admin boundaries was a good idea, I would tend to the former.

I also believe the actual situation has already been ignored for too long. When the thing is still dynamic or/and we’re in the middle of a conflict it can be wise to step back and see for some time how things are evolving, but 4 years are a lot of time, something like one year would seem more reasonable.

What do you think?

Cheers, Martin 

sent from a phone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>
Date: 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST
To: [hidden email]
Subject: DWG policy on Crimea


Dear members of the DWG,

as of this question in the help forum:

https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65436/what-is-the-current-position-of-the-dataworkinggroup-on-crimea 

I kindly invite you to reconsider and eventually update your position on the situation in Crimea.

As you have stated in 2014, this should not be the long term way to deal with the situation, and short term is probably coming to an end. There is clear guidance by the OSMF board how to deal with disputed boundaries (as the situation seems to be more stable than some would have liked).

My motivation is not promoting the Russian point of view, but to act predictably and consistent wrt sensible topics.

Thank you,
cheers,
Martin 

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

Re: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

_ dikkeknodel

Hi all,

 

I fully support the position summarized by statement “As you have stated in 2014, this should not be the long term way to deal with the situation, and short term is probably coming to an end.” If the DWG does not share this position, they should provide an argument for it.

 

Cheers,

dikkeknodel

 


Van: Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>
Verzonden: Sunday, October 21, 2018 3:12:03 PM
Aan: [hidden email]
Onderwerp: [OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea
 
Dear all,

we all know how sensible the topic of disputed boundaries can be (they are not necessarily a big problem, many boundary disputes like between Italy and France about the summit of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco, have little bearing on the actual life of people).

Therefore we can all be satisfied there is clear guidance from the board how to deal with this: the local situation determines how we map, and the OSMF is explicit here: “National borders are particularly sensitive. 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.”


When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199

As many might know, the current boundary situation for Crimea was frozen 4 years ago “for a short time” by the DWG and so I asked them about their current position 2 months ago, and after I got no reply, tried to remind them 5 weeks ago, but have not yet gotten any reply, so I am now opening this thread here.

IMHO, for consistency and credibility, we should either recognize that Russia is actually controlling Crimea, or we should update the disputed borders information. As I believe the general concept of ground truth for admin boundaries was a good idea, I would tend to the former.

I also believe the actual situation has already been ignored for too long. When the thing is still dynamic or/and we’re in the middle of a conflict it can be wise to step back and see for some time how things are evolving, but 4 years are a lot of time, something like one year would seem more reasonable.

What do you think?

Cheers, Martin 

sent from a phone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>
Date: 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST
To: [hidden email]
Subject: DWG policy on Crimea


Dear members of the DWG,

as of this question in the help forum:

https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65436/what-is-the-current-position-of-the-dataworkinggroup-on-crimea 

I kindly invite you to reconsider and eventually update your position on the situation in Crimea.

As you have stated in 2014, this should not be the long term way to deal with the situation, and short term is probably coming to an end. There is clear guidance by the OSMF board how to deal with disputed boundaries (as the situation seems to be more stable than some would have liked).

My motivation is not promoting the Russian point of view, but to act predictably and consistent wrt sensible topics.

Thank you,
cheers,
Martin 

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

Re: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Imre Samu
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
> When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199


Imre

Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. okt. 21., V, 15:15):
Dear all,

we all know how sensible the topic of disputed boundaries can be (they are not necessarily a big problem, many boundary disputes like between Italy and France about the summit of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco, have little bearing on the actual life of people).

Therefore we can all be satisfied there is clear guidance from the board how to deal with this: the local situation determines how we map, and the OSMF is explicit here: “National borders are particularly sensitive. 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.”


When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199

As many might know, the current boundary situation for Crimea was frozen 4 years ago “for a short time” by the DWG and so I asked them about their current position 2 months ago, and after I got no reply, tried to remind them 5 weeks ago, but have not yet gotten any reply, so I am now opening this thread here.

IMHO, for consistency and credibility, we should either recognize that Russia is actually controlling Crimea, or we should update the disputed borders information. As I believe the general concept of ground truth for admin boundaries was a good idea, I would tend to the former.

I also believe the actual situation has already been ignored for too long. When the thing is still dynamic or/and we’re in the middle of a conflict it can be wise to step back and see for some time how things are evolving, but 4 years are a lot of time, something like one year would seem more reasonable.

What do you think?

Cheers, Martin 

sent from a phone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>
Date: 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST
To: [hidden email]
Subject: DWG policy on Crimea


Dear members of the DWG,

as of this question in the help forum:

https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65436/what-is-the-current-position-of-the-dataworkinggroup-on-crimea 

I kindly invite you to reconsider and eventually update your position on the situation in Crimea.

As you have stated in 2014, this should not be the long term way to deal with the situation, and short term is probably coming to an end. There is clear guidance by the OSMF board how to deal with disputed boundaries (as the situation seems to be more stable than some would have liked).

My motivation is not promoting the Russian point of view, but to act predictably and consistent wrt sensible topics.

Thank you,
cheers,
Martin 
_______________________________________________
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: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Mateusz Konieczny-3



21. Oct 2018 15:12 by [hidden email]:

Therefore we can all be satisfied there is clear guidance from the board how to deal with this: the local situation determines how we map, and the OSMF is explicit here: “National borders are particularly sensitive. 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.”


When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199


Yes, situation on the ground is quite clear here.


No matter whatever we like it or not, Crimea is no longer controlled by Ukraine and situation

here is quite clear, unlike other affected regions.


We should apply here "Note that OSM follows On the Ground Rule. Boundaries recorded in
OpenStreetMap are ones that are the most widely internationally recognised and best meets realities
on the ground, generally meaning physical control."

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

Re: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Yuri Astrakhan-2
I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two relations will overlap.

While not ideal, this is preferable for many data consumers - when generating a map, one always has to consider whom it is being generated for.  E.g. it would be illegal in some countries to generate political map not according to that country's government.  So when I generate a map for Russia, I have to show Crimea as part of Russia.  For Ukraine - as part of Ukraine.  Same for China and India and ...

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 5:11 PM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:



21. Oct 2018 15:12 by [hidden email]:

Therefore we can all be satisfied there is clear guidance from the board how to deal with this: the local situation determines how we map, and the OSMF is explicit here: “National borders are particularly sensitive. 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.”


When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199


Yes, situation on the ground is quite clear here.


No matter whatever we like it or not, Crimea is no longer controlled by Ukraine and situation

here is quite clear, unlike other affected regions.


We should apply here "Note that OSM follows On the Ground Rule. Boundaries recorded in
OpenStreetMap are ones that are the most widely internationally recognised and best meets realities
on the ground, generally meaning physical control."
_______________________________________________
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: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Oleksiy Muzalyev
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
Hi Martin,

Before continuing this discussion further, I would advise to read the amazing article "The demise of the nation state" by Rana Dasgupta available via this link: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta

The issue of national state boundaries is more profound and ubiquitous than it may seem at first sight. This topic is controversial and complicated, and Rana Dasgupta's analyses provides some good starting-point insights.

Best regards,
Oleksiy
 
On 21.10.18 16:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Dear all,

we all know how sensible the topic of disputed boundaries can be (they are not necessarily a big problem, many boundary disputes like between Italy and France about the summit of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco, have little bearing on the actual life of people).

Therefore we can all be satisfied there is clear guidance from the board how to deal with this: the local situation determines how we map, and the OSMF is explicit here: “National borders are particularly sensitive. 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.”


When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199

As many might know, the current boundary situation for Crimea was frozen 4 years ago “for a short time” by the DWG and so I asked them about their current position 2 months ago, and after I got no reply, tried to remind them 5 weeks ago, but have not yet gotten any reply, so I am now opening this thread here.

IMHO, for consistency and credibility, we should either recognize that Russia is actually controlling Crimea, or we should update the disputed borders information. As I believe the general concept of ground truth for admin boundaries was a good idea, I would tend to the former.

I also believe the actual situation has already been ignored for too long. When the thing is still dynamic or/and we’re in the middle of a conflict it can be wise to step back and see for some time how things are evolving, but 4 years are a lot of time, something like one year would seem more reasonable.

What do you think?

Cheers, Martin 

sent from a phone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>
Date: 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST
To: [hidden email]
Subject: DWG policy on Crimea


Dear members of the DWG,

as of this question in the help forum:

https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65436/what-is-the-current-position-of-the-dataworkinggroup-on-crimea 

I kindly invite you to reconsider and eventually update your position on the situation in Crimea.

As you have stated in 2014, this should not be the long term way to deal with the situation, and short term is probably coming to an end. There is clear guidance by the OSMF board how to deal with disputed boundaries (as the situation seems to be more stable than some would have liked).

My motivation is not promoting the Russian point of view, but to act predictably and consistent wrt sensible topics.

Thank you,
cheers,
Martin 


_______________________________________________
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: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Yuri Astrakhan-2
21. Oct 2018 23:19 by [hidden email]:

I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two relations will overlap.


That is absurd and conflict with OSM rule to map what exists.

 
E.g. it would be illegal in some countries to generate political map not according to that country's government. 


It is also against Chinese law to publish accurate maps of China. It is not a sufficient reason

to forbid accurate mapping of China in OSM.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_data_in_China

 

So when I generate a map for Russia, I have to show Crimea as part of Russia.  For Ukraine - as part of Ukraine.  Same for China and India and ...


There are also other sources of data. For example to show proper terrain shape or to show

ratings of restaurants and for many others use cases OSM is not sufficient.


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

Re: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Oleksiy Muzalyev
Can you summarize parts of this article (5k+ words, in "long read" section) that are relevant to
tagging of Russian and Ukrainian border in the Crimea?

22. Oct 2018 00:44 by [hidden email]:

Hi Martin,

Before continuing this discussion further, I would advise to read the amazing article "The demise of the nation state" by Rana Dasgupta available via this link: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta

The issue of national state boundaries is more profound and ubiquitous than it may seem at first sight. This topic is controversial and complicated, and Rana Dasgupta's analyses provides some good starting-point insights.

Best regards,
Oleksiy
 
On 21.10.18 16:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Dear all,

we all know how sensible the topic of disputed boundaries can be (they are not necessarily a big problem, many boundary disputes like between Italy and France about the summit of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco, have little bearing on the actual life of people).

Therefore we can all be satisfied there is clear guidance from the board how to deal with this: the local situation determines how we map, and the OSMF is explicit here: “National borders are particularly sensitive. 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.”


When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199

As many might know, the current boundary situation for Crimea was frozen 4 years ago “for a short time” by the DWG and so I asked them about their current position 2 months ago, and after I got no reply, tried to remind them 5 weeks ago, but have not yet gotten any reply, so I am now opening this thread here.

IMHO, for consistency and credibility, we should either recognize that Russia is actually controlling Crimea, or we should update the disputed borders information. As I believe the general concept of ground truth for admin boundaries was a good idea, I would tend to the former.

I also believe the actual situation has already been ignored for too long. When the thing is still dynamic or/and we’re in the middle of a conflict it can be wise to step back and see for some time how things are evolving, but 4 years are a lot of time, something like one year would seem more reasonable.

What do you think?

Cheers, Martin 

sent from a phone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>
Date: 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST
To: [hidden email]
Subject: DWG policy on Crimea


Dear members of the DWG,

as of this question in the help forum:

https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65436/what-is-the-current-position-of-the-dataworkinggroup-on-crimea 

I kindly invite you to reconsider and eventually update your position on the situation in Crimea.

As you have stated in 2014, this should not be the long term way to deal with the situation, and short term is probably coming to an end. There is clear guidance by the OSMF board how to deal with disputed boundaries (as the situation seems to be more stable than some would have liked).

My motivation is not promoting the Russian point of view, but to act predictably and consistent wrt sensible topics.

Thank you,
cheers,
Martin 


_______________________________________________
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: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Yuri Astrakhan-2
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two relations will overlap.

That is absurd and conflict with OSM rule to map what exists. 

On the contrary, it actually matches OSM rules better than deciding yourself.  When drawing a city outline, you go to that city's government, and get the geoshape from them. By extension, if you draw a country, you should use that country's definition.  If two country's definitions happen to overlap, we ought to document both.

E.g. it would be illegal in some countries to generate political map not according to that country's government. 

It is also against Chinese law to publish accurate maps of China. It is not a sufficient reason to forbid accurate mapping of China in OSM.

I did not say we must abide by laws of every country - would not be possible in case of conflicts. I only said that some countries require you to draw maps according to their laws.  China is clearly a special case here, but other countries are much more reasonable, yet still expect you to draw their maps for them according to their rules.
So when I generate a map for Russia, I have to show Crimea as part of Russia.  For Ukraine - as part of Ukraine.  Same for China and India and ...

There are also other sources of data. For example to show proper terrain shape or to show ratings of restaurants and for many others use cases OSM is not sufficient.

The argument "it doesn't work for X, therefor we shouldn't make it work for Y" is puzzling. We can easily make it work for the very practical usecase I outlined -- drawing countries' borders based on the expectations of a specific user's location.  Country borders are by definition a controversial topic without a single answer, and as you said, there are other data sources for it. Yet we add it to OSM because it has a very tangible value to the data consumers (who don't have to mix-in multiple data sources for the basic mapping needs).

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

Re: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

dieterdreist


Am Mo., 22. Okt. 2018 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Yuri Astrakhan <[hidden email]>:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two relations will overlap.

That is absurd and conflict with OSM rule to map what exists. 

On the contrary, it actually matches OSM rules better than deciding yourself.  When drawing a city outline, you go to that city's government, and get the geoshape from them. By extension, if you draw a country, you should use that country's definition.  If two country's definitions happen to overlap, we ought to document both.


In principle I agree it would be desirable to keep records of "all" claims for a territory, (I can imagine there will be some more rules required, because there are even small groups and individuals claiming authority over territories with very low possibility to be recognized by anyone else, and we might want to exclude those "trolls"). But this should not mean that we do not keep information about who actually controls the territory, and who has claims on it but does not control it. Simply adding a territory to 2 countries at the same time can't be the solution.

The complicated part seems to state whose version of the country/border it is. We could have multiple countries for the different possibilities with a tag (or memberships) that says from which country this is (e.g. for the Crimea we would have the borders of Russia and of Ucraine according to the Ucraine and to Russia = 4 versions of the 2 countries). But when those countries have different disputes with different other countries, this could become very complex and unmaintainable.

Not sure how to encode for members of a (country)relation that they are the view of a specific country. Maybe it could be achieved with another relation type. Border ways could go into border relations (one or more connected ways) that are part of a border and have tags which say who has recognized them or whose view it is (this could also be done with a role like "according_to" and the country as a member, or a simple tag like according_to=CN). The country relation would be built by referring to those border relations (it would contain all borders and alternative borders, and the parts would have the tag that says according to whom).

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

Re: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Mateusz Konieczny-3

22. Oct 2018 16:17 by [hidden email]:

Am Mo., 22. Okt. 2018 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Yuri Astrakhan <[hidden email]>:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two relations will overlap.

That is absurd and conflict with OSM rule to map what exists. 

On the contrary, it actually matches OSM rules better than deciding yourself.  When drawing a city outline, you go to that city's government, and get the geoshape from them. By extension, if you draw a country, you should use that country's definition.  If two country's definitions happen to overlap, we ought to document both.


In principle I agree it would be desirable to keep records of "all" claims for a territory, (I can imagine there will be some more rules required, because there are even small groups and individuals claiming authority over territories with very low possibility to be recognized by anyone else, and we might want to exclude those "trolls"). But this should not mean that we do not keep information about who actually controls the territory, and who has claims on it but does not control it. Simply adding a territory to 2 countries at the same time can't be the solution.


I am not fundamentally opposed to adding various claims to OSM (though I am not

supporting it either).


But in cases where there is clear who controls given territory main border then

main administrative boundary should be applied to line of control.


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

Re: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Yuri Astrakhan-2
22. Oct 2018 15:51 by [hidden email]:

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two relations will overlap.

That is absurd and conflict with OSM rule to map what exists. 

On the contrary, it actually matches OSM rules better than deciding yourself.  When drawing a city outline, you go to that city's government, and get the geoshape from them.


 

By extension, if you draw a country, you should use that country's definition. 


I strongly disagree, we map reality. When I map a business I map what exists there, not

what the owner claims to be existing. When I map road I map what exists not what is

supposed to exist there according to official sources.


When I map the border of a country I map line of control, not an official claim of the country.


Maybe "officially claimed border of country" is also mappable but it would not be marked as

a border.

 

By extension, if you draw a country, you should use that country's definition. 


I also disagree as for when it comes to making maps. I see no reason why I should be

obligated by official claims by specific country. I may follow them in some cases but

it is often undesirable or harmful.

 

If two country's definitions happen to overlap, we ought to document both.


I am not sure whatever we should map border claims.

 

So when I generate a map for Russia, I have to show Crimea as part of Russia.  For Ukraine - as part of Ukraine.  Same for China and India and ...

There are also other sources of data. For example to show proper terrain shape or to show ratings of restaurants and for many others use cases OSM is not sufficient.

The argument "it doesn't work for X, therefor we shouldn't make it work for Y" is puzzling.

No, I was just reminding that OSM is not for all and every geographical data.


I am not sure whatever border claims are one of these cases.


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

Re: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Colin Smale

On 2018-10-22 16:34, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

I strongly disagree, we map reality.

There is no one true reality, only perceptions. Which reality takes precedence in your mind, may not be the same for everyone. Reality is subjective.

What is the test to apply to decide whether a point is included in country A or country B? Is it who empties the rubbish bins perhaps? Is it where the taxes are paid to? Is it what an arbitrary local would answer to the question "what country are you in?" Putting it in objective terms, and then applying the criteria consistently, facilitates getting consensus.

In the case of disputed borders, there are at least two realities (as perceived by the parties to the dispute) and possibly a third reality as perceived by a number of locals - who need to give objective answers to carefully selected questions so that unintended bias is avoided.





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

Re: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Mateusz Konieczny-3
22. Oct 2018 16:59 by [hidden email]:

On 2018-10-22 16:34, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

I strongly disagree, we map reality.

There is no one true reality, only perceptions.


There is both a true reality and our biased interpretation of it. But it many

cases it is possible to select criteria, rules, categorizations where bias is small and

our interpretation align.


But anyway that is a philosophical claim and that discussion is unlikely to lead anything useful.

 

Which reality takes precedence in your mind, may not be the same for everyone. Reality is subjective.

What is the test to apply to decide whether a point is included in country A or country B?


In case of Russian/Ukrainian border, as defined by on the ground line of control

"is area controlled by Russian army or Ukrainian army" works quite well, better than

"is this area claimed by Russia" or "is this area claimed by Ukraine"


In the case of disputed borders, there are at least two realities (as perceived by the parties to the dispute) and possibly a third reality as perceived by a number of locals


There is one reality and multiple interpretations of it. It is preferable to map things so that

interpretations are not different between mappers.


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

Re: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Oleksiy Muzalyev
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
The situation with Crimea is not clear-cut. It is kind of complicated. For instance, the climate in Crimea is very dry, that is why the water from the river Dnieper had been transferred to Crimea by an immense artificial North Crimean Canal [1]. Now the Dnieper water is not sold to Crimea any more.

The newspaper Le Monde named Rana Dasgupta one of 70 people who are making the world of tomorrow [2]. Speaking figuratively, an electrician may work with wires without knowing Maxwell's equations or Ohm's law formulas. Still, it is better that he has some notion of the theory of electromagnetism.

The same is here. We try to discuss border dispute between the nation states. I just recommended to read an article [3] of the well known essayist and thinker about the nation state evolution as a political, economical, and philosophical concept. It will not solve this dispute, but at least, its nature could be better understood.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rana_Dasgupta
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta

Best regards,
Oleksiy

On 22.10.18 15:25, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
Can you summarize parts of this article (5k+ words, in "long read" section) that are relevant to
tagging of Russian and Ukrainian border in the Crimea?

22. Oct 2018 00:44 by [hidden email]:

Hi Martin,

Before continuing this discussion further, I would advise to read the amazing article "The demise of the nation state" by Rana Dasgupta available via this link: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/apr/05/demise-of-the-nation-state-rana-dasgupta

The issue of national state boundaries is more profound and ubiquitous than it may seem at first sight. This topic is controversial and complicated, and Rana Dasgupta's analyses provides some good starting-point insights.

Best regards,
Oleksiy
 
On 21.10.18 16:12, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Dear all,

we all know how sensible the topic of disputed boundaries can be (they are not necessarily a big problem, many boundary disputes like between Italy and France about the summit of Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco, have little bearing on the actual life of people).

Therefore we can all be satisfied there is clear guidance from the board how to deal with this: the local situation determines how we map, and the OSMF is explicit here: “National borders are particularly sensitive. 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.”


When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine in OSM: https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199

As many might know, the current boundary situation for Crimea was frozen 4 years ago “for a short time” by the DWG and so I asked them about their current position 2 months ago, and after I got no reply, tried to remind them 5 weeks ago, but have not yet gotten any reply, so I am now opening this thread here.

IMHO, for consistency and credibility, we should either recognize that Russia is actually controlling Crimea, or we should update the disputed borders information. As I believe the general concept of ground truth for admin boundaries was a good idea, I would tend to the former.

I also believe the actual situation has already been ignored for too long. When the thing is still dynamic or/and we’re in the middle of a conflict it can be wise to step back and see for some time how things are evolving, but 4 years are a lot of time, something like one year would seem more reasonable.

What do you think?

Cheers, Martin 

sent from a phone

Begin forwarded message:

From: Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]>
Date: 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST
To: [hidden email]
Subject: DWG policy on Crimea


Dear members of the DWG,

as of this question in the help forum:

https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/65436/what-is-the-current-position-of-the-dataworkinggroup-on-crimea 

I kindly invite you to reconsider and eventually update your position on the situation in Crimea.

As you have stated in 2014, this should not be the long term way to deal with the situation, and short term is probably coming to an end. There is clear guidance by the OSMF board how to deal with disputed boundaries (as the situation seems to be more stable than some would have liked).

My motivation is not promoting the Russian point of view, but to act predictably and consistent wrt sensible topics.

Thank you,
cheers,
Martin 


_______________________________________________
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: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Greg Troxel-2
In reply to this post by Yuri Astrakhan-2
Yuri Astrakhan <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think
>> of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two
>> relations will overlap.
>>
>> That is absurd and conflict with OSM rule to map what exists.
>>
> On the contrary, it actually matches OSM rules better than deciding
> yourself.  When drawing a city outline, you go to that city's government,
> and get the geoshape from them. By extension, if you draw a country, you
> should use that country's definition.  If two country's definitions happen
> to overlap, we ought to document both.

Yes, we use government data to draw boundaries sometimes.  When there
are no disputes, and the boundaries from many sources all line up, and
mappers can see on the ground the markers and signs and it's all
consistent, this is perfectly fine.

The situation of a country claiming territory that is does not
physically control is entirely different.

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

Re: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Paul Johnson-3


On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 7:29 PM Greg Troxel <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yuri Astrakhan <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I think a country relation should describe how the specific country think
>> of its borders. So if two countries claim the same territory, those two
>> relations will overlap.
>>
>> That is absurd and conflict with OSM rule to map what exists.
>>
> On the contrary, it actually matches OSM rules better than deciding
> yourself.  When drawing a city outline, you go to that city's government,
> and get the geoshape from them. By extension, if you draw a country, you
> should use that country's definition.  If two country's definitions happen
> to overlap, we ought to document both.

Yes, we use government data to draw boundaries sometimes.  When there
are no disputes, and the boundaries from many sources all line up, and
mappers can see on the ground the markers and signs and it's all
consistent, this is perfectly fine.

The situation of a country claiming territory that is does not
physically control is entirely different.

Not to mention that the situation of a country claiming territory that it physically controls, but only it recognizes, is also a relatively rare thing this decade.  Playing it conservatively in the "Russia claims Crimea and controls it, but unilaterally and by force from Ukraine" is definitely a situation that deserves both claims being mapped until the broader international community does.  I believe the original complaint to be generously asking a lot given the context of this specific dispute and they're arguing a side one country says "yes", and literally every other country or very close close to it) says "no".  Would be like if the US arbitrarily steamed into the Manitoba and claimed it as a state...pretty sure the world would see both claims and at least have serious problems with one until the locals settled it definitively and, as the world views it, either amicably or definitively but preferably both.  Given that Hans Island isn't a settled issue between Canada and Denmark with literally zero people and only speculative resources at stake, 30 years later, don't count on Crimea getting resolved any faster given the current pace to resolve it on the ground.

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

Re: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Yuri Astrakhan-2
Hi,

the Crimea issue is currently being discussed in DWG.

Regarding the wider question of boundaries, here is our policy on
disputed boundaries

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf

This policy is not likely to change any time soon.

It would however be interesting to develop a tagging scheme that lets us
not only record "this border is disputed" but also "this is the extent
of country X according to country Y", which we currently don't have.

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: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Christoph Hormann-2
On Tuesday 23 October 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> It would however be interesting to develop a tagging scheme that lets
> us not only record "this border is disputed" but also "this is the
> extent of country X according to country Y", which we currently don't
> have.

I think that would not be verifiable.  Different political fractions
often even have different opinions on the extent of their country.  OSM
is not a place to record a spectrum of opinions on political goals and
human beliefs, it is meant to record a single consistent model of the
verifiably observable nature of reality.

If data users need additional data for their purposes they need to
obtain it from other sources.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Frederik Ramm
23. Oct 2018 08:57 by [hidden email]:

It would however be interesting to develop a tagging scheme that lets us
not only record "this border is disputed" but also "this is the extent
of country X according to country Y", which we currently don't have.


It seems close to ratings, reviews and other things that should not be  

kept in OSM database.


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
12