Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Johnparis
Thanks. I never did post the final vote, which was 17 yes, 14 no, and 2 abstain. (There was an additional yes vote after the time period elapsed, which has no effect on the outcome.)

The proposal was therefore defeated, not having achieved anywhere near 74% approval. I suspect that it is not possible to get anything higher that what the proposal achieved (about 55%). I have not gone through the comments to see if further changes and another vote would make a difference.

What surprised me, however, was the general lack of interest. I had thought this was a hot button issue, what with dozens of people registering with OSM, the big kerfuffle about Crimea, etc. If only 33 people are interested in this topic, it seems useless for me to continue to try to refine the proposal.

Having comments during the voting seems useful, but I was taken aback by the fact that issues were raised during the voting that were not raised during the Request For Comments period. That strikes me as odd, since it raises issues that cannot be discussed during the voting. I refer, for example, to the idea of the "on the ground" principle.

The proposal was written specifically to SUPPORT the "on the ground" principle, which I felt was undermined by the vote of the OSM Foundation board.

The problem with the current system is that it conflates two things: the border claim by a country and the line of control for a country.

Let's start with borders. ALL borders in OSM are based on claims. All of them. Even when you see a fence, a border crossing post, etc., those are REFLECTIONS of the border claim. They are not the border itself. And all borders (even maritime) are based on paper. Either there was a war and a treaty, or there is a traditional agreement, or in the case of maritime borders, there is (generally) a 12-mile boundary away from "baselines", all of which are claims. So to be clear, every single admin_level=2 boundary in OSM today is based on a claim.

Lines of control are different, and are based on actual "on the ground" control. Those are fluid and difficult to ascertain in some cases, which is why the proposal spelled out a system that anyone could apply to know where and how to (literally) draw the line.

Because it's basically impossible to eliminate the border claims (they are inherent to the OSM map), and because they are not observable "on the ground", the proposal was designed to eliminate the conflation between border claims and lines of control. The purpose of this is to support the on the ground principle. I am surprised that some people thought it might undermine it.

Similarly with the list of claiming entities. There is ALREADY such a list ("political entities with ISO codes"), it is simply not consistently followed. The proposal offered specific criteria so everyone would know who's in and who's out, as well as a way to change the criteria.

But enough of that. These things could have been discussed during the RFC. They weren't. I doubt with such a controversial topic, however, that a 74% vote would ever be possible. So I am content to mark it as "defeated".

I do like Nathaniel's idea, and since we have "any tag you like" there is nothing to stop people from implementing the proposal as is. I do suspect that edit wars (as we have already seen) will follow, and I feel sorry for the Data Working Group and the OSM Foundation board -- I certainly wouldn't want to arbitrate those.

John




On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:50 PM Nathaniel V. Kelso <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi fellow mapping enthusiasts,

Just a friendly heads up I've started to tag more disputed administrative boundary lines in OpenStreetMap with tags for disputed=yes (but will leave the existing dispute=yes alone), adding disputed_by=* on disputed ways, and adding claimed_by=* on their relations to support multiple points-of-view.

I posted a diary entry about this sprint here:

So far I've limited editing to existing features (like in Kashmir, Crimea, Western Sahara), but there actually aren't that may so I may start adding missing ones later this month.

If you have any questions please let me know, and if you want to help out let's coordinate :)

Cheers,

_Nathaniel


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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Yuri Astrakhan-2
John, thanks for all the work on this.

What surprises me is that some people are so oppose to the principal value of OSM itself -- to allow mappers to map.  Disputed territories still need to be mapped - because they reflect reality of the dispute, and because many data consumers need it.  Without this data, I as a data consumer [1] must bend over backwards to process data by hand, while sacrificing the main appeal of the openness -- easy access to the community curated data -- see our recent work on India's counties [2]...

[1] -- Elastic maps service https://maps.elastic.co
[2] -- India disputed territories https://github.com/elastic/ems-file-service/pull/89

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:22 PM Johnparis <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks. I never did post the final vote, which was 17 yes, 14 no, and 2 abstain. (There was an additional yes vote after the time period elapsed, which has no effect on the outcome.)

The proposal was therefore defeated, not having achieved anywhere near 74% approval. I suspect that it is not possible to get anything higher that what the proposal achieved (about 55%). I have not gone through the comments to see if further changes and another vote would make a difference.

What surprised me, however, was the general lack of interest. I had thought this was a hot button issue, what with dozens of people registering with OSM, the big kerfuffle about Crimea, etc. If only 33 people are interested in this topic, it seems useless for me to continue to try to refine the proposal.

Having comments during the voting seems useful, but I was taken aback by the fact that issues were raised during the voting that were not raised during the Request For Comments period. That strikes me as odd, since it raises issues that cannot be discussed during the voting. I refer, for example, to the idea of the "on the ground" principle.

The proposal was written specifically to SUPPORT the "on the ground" principle, which I felt was undermined by the vote of the OSM Foundation board.

The problem with the current system is that it conflates two things: the border claim by a country and the line of control for a country.

Let's start with borders. ALL borders in OSM are based on claims. All of them. Even when you see a fence, a border crossing post, etc., those are REFLECTIONS of the border claim. They are not the border itself. And all borders (even maritime) are based on paper. Either there was a war and a treaty, or there is a traditional agreement, or in the case of maritime borders, there is (generally) a 12-mile boundary away from "baselines", all of which are claims. So to be clear, every single admin_level=2 boundary in OSM today is based on a claim.

Lines of control are different, and are based on actual "on the ground" control. Those are fluid and difficult to ascertain in some cases, which is why the proposal spelled out a system that anyone could apply to know where and how to (literally) draw the line.

Because it's basically impossible to eliminate the border claims (they are inherent to the OSM map), and because they are not observable "on the ground", the proposal was designed to eliminate the conflation between border claims and lines of control. The purpose of this is to support the on the ground principle. I am surprised that some people thought it might undermine it.

Similarly with the list of claiming entities. There is ALREADY such a list ("political entities with ISO codes"), it is simply not consistently followed. The proposal offered specific criteria so everyone would know who's in and who's out, as well as a way to change the criteria.

But enough of that. These things could have been discussed during the RFC. They weren't. I doubt with such a controversial topic, however, that a 74% vote would ever be possible. So I am content to mark it as "defeated".

I do like Nathaniel's idea, and since we have "any tag you like" there is nothing to stop people from implementing the proposal as is. I do suspect that edit wars (as we have already seen) will follow, and I feel sorry for the Data Working Group and the OSM Foundation board -- I certainly wouldn't want to arbitrate those.

John




On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 8:50 PM Nathaniel V. Kelso <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi fellow mapping enthusiasts,

Just a friendly heads up I've started to tag more disputed administrative boundary lines in OpenStreetMap with tags for disputed=yes (but will leave the existing dispute=yes alone), adding disputed_by=* on disputed ways, and adding claimed_by=* on their relations to support multiple points-of-view.

I posted a diary entry about this sprint here:

So far I've limited editing to existing features (like in Kashmir, Crimea, Western Sahara), but there actually aren't that may so I may start adding missing ones later this month.

If you have any questions please let me know, and if you want to help out let's coordinate :)

Cheers,

_Nathaniel


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

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Jan S
In reply to this post by Johnparis

Am Di., 12. März 2019 um 19:22 Uhr schrieb Johnparis <[hidden email]>:
Thanks. I never did post the final vote, which was 17 yes, 14 no, and 2 abstain. (There was an additional yes vote after the time period elapsed, which has no effect on the outcome.)

The proposal was therefore defeated, not having achieved anywhere near 74% approval. I suspect that it is not possible to get anything higher that what the proposal achieved (about 55%). I have not gone through the comments to see if further changes and another vote would make a difference.

What surprised me, however, was the general lack of interest. I had thought this was a hot button issue, what with dozens of people registering with OSM, the big kerfuffle about Crimea, etc. If only 33 people are interested in this topic, it seems useless for me to continue to try to refine the proposal.

Having comments during the voting seems useful, but I was taken aback by the fact that issues were raised during the voting that were not raised during the Request For Comments period. That strikes me as odd, since it raises issues that cannot be discussed during the voting. I refer, for example, to the idea of the "on the ground" principle.

The proposal was written specifically to SUPPORT the "on the ground" principle, which I felt was undermined by the vote of the OSM Foundation board.

The problem with the current system is that it conflates two things: the border claim by a country and the line of control for a country.

Let's start with borders. ALL borders in OSM are based on claims. All of them. Even when you see a fence, a border crossing post, etc., those are REFLECTIONS of the border claim. They are not the border itself. And all borders (even maritime) are based on paper. Either there was a war and a treaty, or there is a traditional agreement, or in the case of maritime borders, there is (generally) a 12-mile boundary away from "baselines", all of which are claims. So to be clear, every single admin_level=2 boundary in OSM today is based on a claim.

Lines of control are different, and are based on actual "on the ground" control. Those are fluid and difficult to ascertain in some cases, which is why the proposal spelled out a system that anyone could apply to know where and how to (literally) draw the line.

Because it's basically impossible to eliminate the border claims (they are inherent to the OSM map), and because they are not observable "on the ground", the proposal was designed to eliminate the conflation between border claims and lines of control. The purpose of this is to support the on the ground principle. I am surprised that some people thought it might undermine it.

Similarly with the list of claiming entities. There is ALREADY such a list ("political entities with ISO codes"), it is simply not consistently followed. The proposal offered specific criteria so everyone would know who's in and who's out, as well as a way to change the criteria.

But enough of that. These things could have been discussed during the RFC. They weren't. I doubt with such a controversial topic, however, that a 74% vote would ever be possible. So I am content to mark it as "defeated".

I do like Nathaniel's idea, and since we have "any tag you like" there is nothing to stop people from implementing the proposal as is. I do suspect that edit wars (as we have already seen) will follow, and I feel sorry for the Data Working Group and the OSM Foundation board -- I certainly wouldn't want to arbitrate those.

John

Hi John,

I don't think that there's a lack of interest in the issue of disputed territories, but rather that you've hit a fundamental issue in OSM (and that might also appear in any other community-driven project).  Mapping disputed territories is a complex, because it requires (hobby) mappers to involve themselves into issues of international politics. Questions of territorial control, the status of disputes and recognition of states and other entities involve international politics and law. The question of how to map the borders of Crimea, Western Sahara or Israel, which entities are involved and how such conflicts are being resolved go beyond the scope of everyday mapping. It simply is much more demanding to take a stand on such a politically charged issue than e.g. on how to map police facilites, where there is usually no dispute about their existence.

Taking into account the complexity of the issue at hand, I haven't been surprised at all that there were few mappers commenting and voting on your proposal. I haven't mapped international boundaries myself, simply because I didn't have the time to familiarise myself with the current OSM mapping policy and the technical details of mapping such long ways in JOSM. Still, I have voted your proposal, because I have a professional background that has allowed me to easily make up my mind on the issue at hand.

If my assumption about the complexity of the issue and the fact that many mappers might feel overwhelmed by the consequences of your proposal is correct, I am asking myself whether it would be wise to have a proposal developed (or have your proposal assessed) by a group of voluntaries who are particularly trustworthy, e.g. because they have specific knowledge in the field of international disputes or are seasoned mappers, and then put their proposal or assessment to a general vote.

In short, I wonder whether it might be useful to establish a working group on disputed territories to write up a proposal...

Best, Jan

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by Johnparis


On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 04:22, Johnparis <[hidden email]> wrote:
What surprised me, however, was the general lack of interest. I had thought this was a hot button issue, what with dozens of people registering with OSM, the big kerfuffle about Crimea, etc. If only 33 people are interested in this topic, it seems useless for me to continue to try to refine the proposal.

John, I'm sorry your proposal didn't make it, as it seemed like quite a reasonable idea.

I've noticed this before & wonder about the numbers, or lack of them?

Yes there's supposed to be ~750000 mappers on OSM.

I don't know how many subscribe to the Tagging list (I'm sure someone can tell us?) but for Feb 2019 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/author.html, there were posts by only 86 users, 20 of whom made only 1 post, while 37 made more than 5.

Back to Nov 2018 when your proposal was raised https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-November/author.html & those numbers become 76 total posters, 19 with 1 post, & 32 at +5, so virtually identical.

Of those 76 active on the list in Nov, 16 people commented on your proposal. When it came to the vote, 33 people voted, but only 2 of them had made comments on the list, but, strangely enough, only 2 people who commented then voted!

Please note that I am in no way criticising people for not contributing to the list - I'm just pointing out that decisions that potentially effect 750000 mappers are seemingly being made by a mere handful of people, a lot of whom apparently aren't talking to anybody about the suggestion?

I have no idea how we could improve things so there is more feedback - maybe remove the discussion page from the proposals, so all discussion has to happen on the tagging list?

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Joseph Eisenberg
I thought the proposal was too complicated. This made it difficult to review, so I was reluctant to vite. I believe a simpler, more approachabke proposal would have a higher chance of success.

I’d recommend reading all of the objections and trying again with a much simpler version.

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:34 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 04:22, Johnparis <[hidden email]> wrote:
What surprised me, however, was the general lack of interest. I had thought this was a hot button issue, what with dozens of people registering with OSM, the big kerfuffle about Crimea, etc. If only 33 people are interested in this topic, it seems useless for me to continue to try to refine the proposal.

John, I'm sorry your proposal didn't make it, as it seemed like quite a reasonable idea.

I've noticed this before & wonder about the numbers, or lack of them?

Yes there's supposed to be ~750000 mappers on OSM.

I don't know how many subscribe to the Tagging list (I'm sure someone can tell us?) but for Feb 2019 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/author.html, there were posts by only 86 users, 20 of whom made only 1 post, while 37 made more than 5.

Back to Nov 2018 when your proposal was raised https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-November/author.html & those numbers become 76 total posters, 19 with 1 post, & 32 at +5, so virtually identical.

Of those 76 active on the list in Nov, 16 people commented on your proposal. When it came to the vote, 33 people voted, but only 2 of them had made comments on the list, but, strangely enough, only 2 people who commented then voted!

Please note that I am in no way criticising people for not contributing to the list - I'm just pointing out that decisions that potentially effect 750000 mappers are seemingly being made by a mere handful of people, a lot of whom apparently aren't talking to anybody about the suggestion?

I have no idea how we could improve things so there is more feedback - maybe remove the discussion page from the proposals, so all discussion has to happen on the tagging list?

Thanks

Graeme
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Yuri Astrakhan-2
I second Joseph's comment -- the proposal has to be very short for people to review it - e.g. less than a page, with a clear usage examples -- take a few well known ones like Crimea and Kashmir, and just list all features (ways/relations) and their tags.  (actually most people don't read beyond the first paragraph... on the rare days when we read beyond the subject line ;))

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:57 PM Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
I thought the proposal was too complicated. This made it difficult to review, so I was reluctant to vite. I believe a simpler, more approachabke proposal would have a higher chance of success.

I’d recommend reading all of the objections and trying again with a much simpler version.

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:34 AM Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:


On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 04:22, Johnparis <[hidden email]> wrote:
What surprised me, however, was the general lack of interest. I had thought this was a hot button issue, what with dozens of people registering with OSM, the big kerfuffle about Crimea, etc. If only 33 people are interested in this topic, it seems useless for me to continue to try to refine the proposal.

John, I'm sorry your proposal didn't make it, as it seemed like quite a reasonable idea.

I've noticed this before & wonder about the numbers, or lack of them?

Yes there's supposed to be ~750000 mappers on OSM.

I don't know how many subscribe to the Tagging list (I'm sure someone can tell us?) but for Feb 2019 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-February/author.html, there were posts by only 86 users, 20 of whom made only 1 post, while 37 made more than 5.

Back to Nov 2018 when your proposal was raised https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2018-November/author.html & those numbers become 76 total posters, 19 with 1 post, & 32 at +5, so virtually identical.

Of those 76 active on the list in Nov, 16 people commented on your proposal. When it came to the vote, 33 people voted, but only 2 of them had made comments on the list, but, strangely enough, only 2 people who commented then voted!

Please note that I am in no way criticising people for not contributing to the list - I'm just pointing out that decisions that potentially effect 750000 mappers are seemingly being made by a mere handful of people, a lot of whom apparently aren't talking to anybody about the suggestion?

I have no idea how we could improve things so there is more feedback - maybe remove the discussion page from the proposals, so all discussion has to happen on the tagging list?

Thanks

Graeme
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick



Mar 13, 2019, 12:33 AM by [hidden email]:
I have no idea how we could improve things so there is more feedback - maybe remove the discussion page from the proposals, so all discussion has to happen on the tagging list?
It will rather reduce discussion. People from OSM wiki are more likely to stop commenting rather
than start using mailing list. And why commenting on talk page would be worse than commenting on ml?

People that participate in mailing list (or Wiki or IRC or forum or slack or XYZ) discussions
are extreme outliers of mappers, but given no alternative it is
OK to assume that their opinion sort represent all OSM mappers.

We are de facto self-elected representative of mappers - it is a really biased sample, it
would be nice to change it but blocking discussion on established site is unlikely to help.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick


sent from a phone

> On 13. Mar 2019, at 00:33, Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Of those 76 active on the list in Nov, 16 people commented on your proposal. When it came to the vote, 33 people voted, but only 2 of them had made comments on the list, but, strangely enough, only 2 people who commented then voted!


if you’re convinced a specific tagging works for you and it doesn’t conflict with other schemes (not using the same keys), you can use it (if it uses the same keys and is rejected, I would not use it). A negative voting outcome doesn’t prevent you necessarily from using the tags, but usually if a proposal is rejected there are good reasons to reconsider at least the details.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Jan S
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick


Am 13. März 2019 00:33:02 MEZ schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick <[hidden email]>:

>I have no idea how we could improve things so there is more feedback -
>maybe remove the discussion page from the proposals, so all discussion
>has
>to happen on the tagging list?

Or promote proposals better, may by consistently (or even automatically) linking them on the wiki pages of the affected tags?

Best, Jan

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Graeme Fitzpatrick


On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 17:54, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
It will rather reduce discussion. People from OSM wiki are more likely to stop commenting rather
than start using mailing list. And why commenting on talk page would be worse than commenting on ml?

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that any one way was worse (or better) than another,
 
People that participate in mailing list (or Wiki or IRC or forum or slack or XYZ) discussions

rather that there are too many places that people can discuss proposals. If the OP has put up a proposal, & is on the List & the wiki discussion page to explain details & counter arguments, so most people "here" are happy (!) But at the same time, there's other groups talking about the idea on IRC & XYZ, who aren't getting any feedback from the OP, so they can convince themselves it's a bad idea so vote against it.

It would just be good if there was only  place that these discussions on new proposals took place.

Maybe turn what I said before around - all discussion should be the wiki discussion page, with the only mention on the List being "This new proposal - all discussion at this page", & similar on all the other forums, IRC etc ?

On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 20:42, Jan S <[hidden email]> wrote:
Or promote proposals better, may by consistently (or even automatically) linking them on the wiki pages of the affected tags?

Yep, like that! 

Yeah, I know, so before anyone else says it: https://xkcd.com/927/ :-)  

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Sergio Manzi
On 2019-03-13 22:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> It would just be good if there was only  place that these discussions on new proposals took place.

I was advicing somebody something completely different as of lately: to form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals that are already agreed upon by at least "some" before going public with the proposal...

Your opinion?

Sergio



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

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Joseph Eisenberg
> “form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals”

🤦‍♂️

I might support this if all men, Europeans, and people of European ancestry were excluded from this cabal of illuminati. 😂😁

[guilty as charged ☺️]

Seriously though, it’s much more helpful if authors of proposals get as much advice as possible before going to a vote. 

But y’all could try to be nicer and more constructive in comments on new tags.

Not everyone shares the north-western European value of frank / blunt / direct criticism.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Graeme Fitzpatrick
In reply to this post by Sergio Manzi

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 08:06, Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> wrote:

I was advicing somebody something completely different as of lately: to form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals that are already agreed upon by at least "some" before going public with the proposal...

Your opinion?

Did see that, & thought Hmmm?

The problem I can see, & yes, of course there'll be ways around it, is how do you pick their conspirators collaborators team?

Do you stick up a post saying I'm thinking about a new way of mapping disputed boundaries, anybody interested please contact me privately, or do you send private messages to me, Joseph, Kevin, Dave etc etc to say the same thing? 

Then how do you work together? I don't think we've got any secret pages that are locked against outsider access?

Also, when do you decide that we're going to need a secret meeting to plot this out - some things that seem complicated will turn out to be "change always to usually & it's good to go" & vice versa.

Please don't get me wrong - it's an interesting idea & may well prove to be a good way to go!

Thanks

Graeme

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Sergio Manzi
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On 2019-03-14 00:03, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> “form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals”

🤦‍♂️

I might support this if all men, Europeans, and people of European ancestry were excluded from this cabal of illuminati. 😂😁

[guilty as charged ☺️]


All the silly funny faces do not makes any less vile your attempt to put in my words meanings that were not expressed nor implied.

I never talked about illuminati or a conspiring elite: I was talking about people working in team, in a friendly way, to collectively bring out ideas.

IMHO ideas that comes out from a group debate have far more odds to be accepted by the community: that's all.


Seriously though, it’s much more helpful if authors of proposals get as much advice as possible before going to a vote. 

But y’all could try to be nicer and more constructive in comments on new tags.

Not everyone shares the north-western European value of frank / blunt / direct criticism.

I understand that, as I understand how other cultures have different way to express their feelings, but I hope people of different cultures, here, have the intelligence to understand where I come from and what my real intents are.

Apparently I'm an optimist.



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

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Sergio Manzi
In reply to this post by Graeme Fitzpatrick
On 2019-03-14 00:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:

On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 08:06, Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]> wrote:

I was advicing somebody something completely different as of lately: to form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals that are already agreed upon by at least "some" before going public with the proposal...

Your opinion?

Did see that, & thought Hmmm?

The problem I can see, & yes, of course there'll be ways around it, is how do you pick their conspirators collaborators team?

Do you stick up a post saying I'm thinking about a new way of mapping disputed boundaries, anybody interested please contact me privately, or do you send private messages to me, Joseph, Kevin, Dave etc etc to say the same thing?

Honestly there is no conspiratory intent in what I'm talking about.

How would I pick them? Say that I want to make a proposal about how to tag "cauliflower fields": I'll try to get in touch via email with others that have already expressed their interest in something similar (e.g. artichokes fields) and ask if they are interested in working with me on my new fantastic idea of tagging "cauliflower fields" and/or if they know anybody else that they think could be interested.


Then how do you work together? I don't think we've got any secret pages that are locked against outsider access?

No need for that. You can use good-old email, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal, Slack, IRC, ... whatever.

There is no need for that interaction to go through channels directly handled by OSM


Also, when do you decide that we're going to need a secret meeting to plot this out - some things that seem complicated will turn out to be "change always to usually & it's good to go" & vice versa.

Ooops... sorry... I'm afraid I don't understand the meaning of the above. Can you please repharase?


Please don't get me wrong - it's an interesting idea & may well prove to be a good way to go!

Thanks

Graeme

Cheers!

Sergio


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

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg



Mar 14, 2019, 12:03 AM by [hidden email]:
> “form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to draft proposals”

🤦‍♂️

I might support this if all men, Europeans, and people of European ancestry were excluded from this cabal of illuminati. 😂😁

Proposing discrimination, even framed as jokes, is quite undesirable. Please stop doing this.

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Jan S
In reply to this post by Sergio Manzi


Am 14. März 2019 01:02:56 MEZ schrieb Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]>:

>On 2019-03-14 00:26, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 08:06, Sergio Manzi <[hidden email]
><mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     I was advicing somebody something completely different as of
>lately: to form a hidden, underground, group of motivated persons to
>draft proposals that are already agreed upon by at least "some" before
>going public with the proposal...
>>
>>     Your opinion?
>>
>>
>> Did see that, & thought Hmmm?
>>
>> The problem I can see, & yes, of course there'll be ways around it,
>is how do you pick their conspirators collaborators team?
>>
>> Do you stick up a post saying I'm thinking about a new way of mapping
>disputed boundaries, anybody interested please contact me privately, or
>do you send private messages to me, Joseph, Kevin, Dave etc etc to say
>the same thing?

That somehow sounds like the working group I had brought up earlier. I think its a good way to proceed on fundamental and complex issues.

It wouldn't have to be secret group though. A call for participants and then a list of participants could be published on the proposal page. Also, and in general, proposals should, IMO, be linked on the wiki pages that are concerned, so as to raise more attention and more participation in the voting process.

Maybe it would be viable to initially propose that a complex situation is to be resolved and that a working group shall be established to that end. Thus, people don't have to vote complex proposals but rather only determine that an issue is complex and that a working group shall be conformed to resolve it.

The (working/secret ;)) group would then develop a solution that would have to be approved by simple majority of the votes cast (with working group members excluded from voting). A qualified majority as in individual proposals doesn't seem to be necessary to be, because a working-group proposal is more reliable than individual proposals and thus doesn't require the same level of approval by the community.

This procedure is more complex than that for individual proposals. It also presupposes a degree of confidence in the work of the group. But it might be a way to get better results for complicated problems.

Best, Jan

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

dieterdreist
There are indications that at least 2 other secret groups operating in osm are suspicious about the plans for a new group and are planning to covf
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Paul Allen
On Thu, 14 Mar 2019 at 22:58, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:
There are indications that at least 2 other secret groups operating in osm are suspicious about the plans for a new group and are planning to covf

+1


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging disputed boundaries

Sergio Manzi
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On 2019-03-14 23:57, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> There are indications that at least 2 other secret groups operating in osm are suspicious about the plans for a new group and are planning to covf

Another tasteless and vile joke. Not that I was expecting anything better from you, Martin: tastless jokes are a clear sign of a lower IQ and a troubled personality by someone with the delusion of being superior to others.

Anyway, I see this as the last straw and I have decided to unsubscribe from the mailing list and leave the community: too much noise and bitching and I have more important things to do in my life.

I suppose you can congratulate yourself, Martin: you achieved what quite evidently was your goal, since day one.

Goodbye everybody.

Sergio



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

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment
12