Re: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

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

Re: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

Guillaume Rischard
Hi Rory and fellow members,

I am a candidate in the board election, and have underlined in my manifesto how important it is that decisions like this are taken transparently. The detailed reasoning behind this decision must be published without delay.

The lobbying from Ukrainians over the last days has been heavy. However, the on-the-ground rule is one of the very core values that we have built OSM and the OSMF on.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement says that OSM favours objective ‘Ground Truth’ over all other sources. The ‘Scope of the OSMF’ section says that it does not decide what to map or how to map.

The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea, without any justification, opens Pandora’s box. Would the OSMF react similarly to an appeal concerning other disputed borders? There should never be an arbitrary decision on these issues but only well-defined and established policies.

You could claim that we haven’t followed the on-the-ground rule in Crimea for the last four years. I know that the Data Working Group, which I am a member of, has treated Crimea with kid gloves after the Russian invasion. I haven’t been on the DWG that long; this was decided way before my time. We act more as firefighters than as gardeners, work more reactively than proactively, and always have enough new issues to prevent us from reexamining old ones.

I really think it is now time to apply the on-the-ground rule. We should use the opportunity to reaffirm our core values, review with the community’s support where we have taken decisions on disputed territories, and make sure that we apply the same rules in the same way everywhere.

Guillaume Rischard (personally, not on behalf of the Data Working Group)

> On 11 Dec 2018, at 11:18, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi fellow members,
>
> I am curious what candidates to the board think about this decision. I
> know there was the existing questions, but this is a new topic which
> came up recently. But if you're a candidate for the board, and you have
> an opinion on this, I'd like to hear, and I'm sure other members would
> too. How would you vote if you were on the board now? What
> do you think? Please don't be afraid to say something publicly (here,
> the wiki, user diaries, etc).
>
> Rory
>
> On 10/12/2018 17:55, Martijn van Exel wrote:> Hi all,
>>
>> On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review the Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea.
>>
>> The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to further remain in effect.
>>
>> The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates the difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an ongoing basis.
>>
>> A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Martijn van Exel
>> Secretary, OpenStreetMap Foundation
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk


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

Re: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

Milo van der Linden-5
I agree with what Guillaume says:

"...how important it is that decisions are taken transparently. The detailed reasoning behind any decision must be published without delay."

That in my opinion is key. There is no wrong or right in decision making as long as it can be explained (and reverted when enough good arguments arise). After all, we are all people.

Op di 11 dec. 2018 om 11:51 schreef Guillaume Rischard <[hidden email]>:
Hi Rory and fellow members,

I am a candidate in the board election, and have underlined in my manifesto how important it is that decisions like this are taken transparently. The detailed reasoning behind this decision must be published without delay.

The lobbying from Ukrainians over the last days has been heavy. However, the on-the-ground rule is one of the very core values that we have built OSM and the OSMF on.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement says that OSM favours objective ‘Ground Truth’ over all other sources. The ‘Scope of the OSMF’ section says that it does not decide what to map or how to map.

The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea, without any justification, opens Pandora’s box. Would the OSMF react similarly to an appeal concerning other disputed borders? There should never be an arbitrary decision on these issues but only well-defined and established policies.

You could claim that we haven’t followed the on-the-ground rule in Crimea for the last four years. I know that the Data Working Group, which I am a member of, has treated Crimea with kid gloves after the Russian invasion. I haven’t been on the DWG that long; this was decided way before my time. We act more as firefighters than as gardeners, work more reactively than proactively, and always have enough new issues to prevent us from reexamining old ones.

I really think it is now time to apply the on-the-ground rule. We should use the opportunity to reaffirm our core values, review with the community’s support where we have taken decisions on disputed territories, and make sure that we apply the same rules in the same way everywhere.

Guillaume Rischard (personally, not on behalf of the Data Working Group)

> On 11 Dec 2018, at 11:18, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi fellow members,
>
> I am curious what candidates to the board think about this decision. I
> know there was the existing questions, but this is a new topic which
> came up recently. But if you're a candidate for the board, and you have
> an opinion on this, I'd like to hear, and I'm sure other members would
> too. How would you vote if you were on the board now? What
> do you think? Please don't be afraid to say something publicly (here,
> the wiki, user diaries, etc).
>
> Rory
>
> On 10/12/2018 17:55, Martijn van Exel wrote:> Hi all,
>>
>> On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review the Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea.
>>
>> The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to further remain in effect.
>>
>> The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates the difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an ongoing basis.
>>
>> A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Martijn van Exel
>> Secretary, OpenStreetMap Foundation
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk


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


--
http://www.dogodigi.net
Milo van der Linden
web: dogodigi
tel: +31-6-16598808

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

Re: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

Vladimir Agafonkin-2
In reply to this post by Guillaume Rischard
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:52 PM Guillaume Rischard <[hidden email]> wrote:
The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea, without any justification, opens Pandora’s box. 

All of these statements are misleading. If Crimea is an exception, how is the ground-truth rule applied in South Osetia and Abkhazia, both of which are included in the Georgia boundary which has absolutely no control over those territories (de-facto controlled by Russia)? Why is Transnistria included in the boundaries of Moldova? Why does the Cyprus boundary include a large area fully controlled by Turkey? What police and tax authority is there in large areas of Iran and Iraq controlled by ISIS, and why are these areas still included in the respective countries?

The only major difference in those cases compared to Crimea is that applying the ground-truth rule there would require mapping respective areas as independent countries. But — big surprise! — OSM community by convention limits the list of countries to those recognized by the UN, because, as it turns out, a country is a political entity after all. How ironic is that? 

In practice, OSM never fully adhered to the ground truth rule when it comes to country boundaries, but at least the policy was vague enough to make arbitrary decisions, with either "ground truth" or "widely internationally recognized" bit taking precedence depending on how the DWG members feel about the world on a particular day. Pretending OSM is out of politics when solving an inherently political issue does not help, because then you take a political side implicitly (becoming a welcome tool of Russian regime propaganda in this case).

There are reasonable and possible alternatives, such as this in-progress disputed boundaries proposal, but due to the complexity and emotional charge of the issue, fleshing them out to a practical consensus will take a considerable time. Until such a common ground is found, the most practical thing you can do is to revert to a balance point that prevents never-ending edit wars and worked well in practice for the last 5 years. It's unfortunate that this issue wasn't taken seriously in that period, but hopefully this crisis, however damaging, will facilitate coming to a universal solution soon.

--
Vladimir Agafonkin
https://agafonkin.com
+380 (93) 745 44 61

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

Re: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

Oleksiy Muzalyev
In reply to this post by Guillaume Rischard
Hi Guillaume,

I would like to point out that in Ukraine displaying a map without
Crimea is illegal, article 110, part 1, of the Penal code. It involves
from 3 to 5 years of imprisonment [1]. So the OSM map without Crimea is
becoming potentially unusable for the community in Ukraine.

I think there should be a technical solution, a technical compromise.
For example, introducing the OSM tag: boundary=demarcation line [2].

There are physical objects on roads between the Kherson oblast of
Ukraine and Crimea in the form of concrete blocks [3] from both sides,
mapping which somehow could be useful. Hitting such a road block in
darkness at high speed would be a hapless event.

Local people get arrested regularly for crossing inadvertently [4], so
it could be practical to show a demarcation line. Usually they are let
go after a couple of days and a fine. But even a day or two in a prison
could be a sad experience.

[1] http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2341-14
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_line
[3]
http://bm.img.com.ua/nxs190/berlin/storage/news/600x500/f/b4/ad4d5212db9c4d68933307ba53964b4f.jpg
[4]
https://korrespondent.net/ukraine/4009932-hospohransluzhba-podtverdyla-zaderzhanye-ukraynskykh-rybakov-v-krymu

Best regards,
Oleksiy

On 12/11/2018 11:50 AM, Guillaume Rischard wrote:
> ...
> The lobbying from Ukrainians over the last days has been heavy. However, the on-the-ground rule is one of the very core values that we have built OSM and the OSMF on.
...


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

Re: Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

Tom Hughes-3
On 11/12/2018 13:22, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote:

> I would like to point out that in Ukraine displaying a map without
> Crimea is illegal, article 110, part 1, of the Penal code. It involves
> from 3 to 5 years of imprisonment [1]. So the OSM map without Crimea is
> becoming potentially unusable for the community in Ukraine.

The same is true in India for the various borders, including
that with China.

It's also true in China for the border with India.

Unsurprisingly there is no one rendering that is legal on both
sides of the border.

None of which has stopped us using our current rule for that
border.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes ([hidden email])
http://compton.nu/

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

Re: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

Manfred A. Reiter
In reply to this post by Guillaume Rischard
Am Di., 11. Dez. 2018 um 11:52 Uhr schrieb Guillaume Rischard <[hidden email]>:
Hi Rory and fellow members,

I am a candidate in the board election, and have underlined in my manifesto how important it is that decisions like this are taken transparently. The detailed reasoning behind this decision must be published without delay.

+1

[...]
 
However, the on-the-ground rule is one of the very core values that we have built OSM and the OSMF on.

+1
 
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement says that OSM favours objective ‘Ground Truth’ over all other sources. The ‘Scope of the OSMF’ section says that it does not decide what to map or how to map.
 
[...]

The decision of the DWG was absolutely correct according to the rules that OSM imposed on itself.

I think the board here is opening Pandora's box. It will certainly be interesting to see how all the controversial areas will be judged from now on.

cheers
--
## Manfred Reiter


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

Re: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

Guillaume Rischard
In reply to this post by Oleksiy Muzalyev
Hi Oleksiy,

Thank you. Yes, nobody wants anyone to end up in prison for using OSM.

I know at least two local sites that render their country’s borders differently, https://openstreetmap.in (Kashmir borders rendered differently) and http://openstreetmap.rs/ (Kosovo borders not rendered at all).

Rory’s proposal, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries , seems to be going in the right direction. The Kosovo community seems cool with it. I wonder what the Ukrainian community thinks of it, and whether anyone would like to create a Ukrainian rendering based on it.

I’m not sure we have tags for road blocks like these? In that last link you posted, it sounds like no tagging schema could have helped those poor fishermen with engine troubles.

Guillaume


On 11 Dec 2018, at 14:22, Oleksiy Muzalyev <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Guillaume,

I would like to point out that in Ukraine displaying a map without Crimea is illegal, article 110, part 1, of the Penal code. It involves from 3 to 5 years of imprisonment [1]. So the OSM map without Crimea is becoming potentially unusable for the community in Ukraine.

I think there should be a technical solution, a technical compromise. For example, introducing the OSM tag: boundary=demarcation line [2].

There are physical objects on roads between the Kherson oblast of Ukraine and Crimea in the form of concrete blocks [3] from both sides, mapping which somehow could be useful. Hitting such a road block in darkness at high speed would be a hapless event.

Local people get arrested regularly for crossing inadvertently [4], so it could be practical to show a demarcation line. Usually they are let go after a couple of days and a fine. But even a day or two in a prison could be a sad experience.

[1] http://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2341-14
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_line
[3] http://bm.img.com.ua/nxs190/berlin/storage/news/600x500/f/b4/ad4d5212db9c4d68933307ba53964b4f.jpg
[4] https://korrespondent.net/ukraine/4009932-hospohransluzhba-podtverdyla-zaderzhanye-ukraynskykh-rybakov-v-krymu

Best regards,
Oleksiy

On 12/11/2018 11:50 AM, Guillaume Rischard wrote:
...
The lobbying from Ukrainians over the last days has been heavy. However, the on-the-ground rule is one of the very core values that we have built OSM and the OSMF on.
...



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

Re: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

Imre Samu
In reply to this post by Guillaume Rischard
>https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement says that OSM favours objective ‘Ground Truth’ over all other sources.

:)

Imho:  there are other core values
core1. "We want to make the best map data set of the world" ( With Ukraine!  - I don't want an OSMUkraine-Exit forking OSM , like Brexit example in the today politics )
core3. "OSM is powered by its Community. Engage positively with the Community, be a good and respectful neighbour and assume good intent.""    ( I prefer collaborating with Ukraine community not fighting ) 
core5. "Ground Truth: OSM favours objective “Ground Truth” over all other sources""
 
So we need to find a global optimum - and it is not easy.

Imho: an important part of the solution:
openstreetmap.org vector maps.  ( so we can customize the borders, languages for  the end users, communities )
-  improved admin border tagging 
-  more communication,  adapting the rules for the current political situations.

I would like if we can create an OpenStreetMap Manifesto ( like https://agilemanifesto.org/ )
- important point:    We prefer community (nationality) collaboration over the following rules

Disclaimer:
-  I am a native Hungarian,  and a lot of ethnic Hungarians live in the neighboring countries  - so in Ukraine also ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Ukraine
   A minority language is a hot issue in this area, but we need to collaborate for every neighboring osm community.  
   in this issue - no rationality only emotions.  So mentioning rational "ground truth" is not enough.

so in my reading - We have a little time to focus on the root cause of the problem   ->       We don't have a customizable vector map yet.

>I really think it is now time to apply the on-the-ground rule. We should use the opportunity to reaffirm our core values, 
>review with the community’s support where we have taken decisions on disputed territories, and make sure that we apply the same rules in the same way everywhere.

imho:  this is also important.  
core values: "OSM wants you to map the things you care about and will ensure that you have the freedom to do so. This safeguards the accessibility of our map to diverse users with differing needs."

We need customizable vector tiles for Ukrainian map users!   

Question:  What is the priority of the core values?  

TLDR:  We need focusing for the customizable vector tiles for the next year!    (  Less community fighting - more working on the real problems!  )

this is my personal opinion.  ( but my opinion sometimes change )
( Sorry for my draft English, I respect every people on the DWG !   and this is not so easy issue!  and a lot of unintended consequences,  + complexity;  IMHO: we need an iterative solution! ) 

best,
 Imre




Guillaume Rischard <[hidden email]> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. dec. 11., K, 11:52):
Hi Rory and fellow members,

I am a candidate in the board election, and have underlined in my manifesto how important it is that decisions like this are taken transparently. The detailed reasoning behind this decision must be published without delay.

The lobbying from Ukrainians over the last days has been heavy. However, the on-the-ground rule is one of the very core values that we have built OSM and the OSMF on.

https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement says that OSM favours objective ‘Ground Truth’ over all other sources. The ‘Scope of the OSMF’ section says that it does not decide what to map or how to map.

The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea, without any justification, opens Pandora’s box. Would the OSMF react similarly to an appeal concerning other disputed borders? There should never be an arbitrary decision on these issues but only well-defined and established policies.

You could claim that we haven’t followed the on-the-ground rule in Crimea for the last four years. I know that the Data Working Group, which I am a member of, has treated Crimea with kid gloves after the Russian invasion. I haven’t been on the DWG that long; this was decided way before my time. We act more as firefighters than as gardeners, work more reactively than proactively, and always have enough new issues to prevent us from reexamining old ones.

I really think it is now time to apply the on-the-ground rule. We should use the opportunity to reaffirm our core values, review with the community’s support where we have taken decisions on disputed territories, and make sure that we apply the same rules in the same way everywhere.

Guillaume Rischard (personally, not on behalf of the Data Working Group)

> On 11 Dec 2018, at 11:18, Rory McCann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> Hi fellow members,
>
> I am curious what candidates to the board think about this decision. I
> know there was the existing questions, but this is a new topic which
> came up recently. But if you're a candidate for the board, and you have
> an opinion on this, I'd like to hear, and I'm sure other members would
> too. How would you vote if you were on the board now? What
> do you think? Please don't be afraid to say something publicly (here,
> the wiki, user diaries, etc).
>
> Rory
>
> On 10/12/2018 17:55, Martijn van Exel wrote:> Hi all,
>>
>> On November 17, the OSMF Board of Directors received a request to review the Nov 14, 2018 Data Working Group decision regarding Crimea.
>>
>> The Board decided that this decision is to be reversed and the previous situation, as laid out in the May 5, 2014 Data Working Group minutes, is to further remain in effect.
>>
>> The board highly values the Data Working Group’s work and appreciates the difficulty and complexity of the cases they are asked to review on an ongoing basis.
>>
>> A more comprehensive statement will follow in the next weeks.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Martijn van Exel
>> Secretary, OpenStreetMap Foundation
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-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: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

Vladimir Agafonkin-2
In reply to this post by Vladimir Agafonkin-2
And here you are disqualifying yourself from the discussion because you essentially reject the possibility that OSM can function as a cross cultural, cross ideology project to document the verifiable geography of the world.  If you don't think that is possible and think that OSM when mapping the world has to take a political side maybe OSM is not the right project for you.  Because that is the most fundamental idea behind our project.

I pointed out such a possibility in the same message (which I hoped you'd read fully before replying), assuming OSM wants to map "verifiable geography" and not "the world according to Christoph Hormann". As soon as you extend the physical ground truth principle to non-physical political entities, doing so selectively to form a single view that aligns with your personal feelings, the issue becomes political. It doesn't have to be.

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 2:40 PM Vladimir Agafonkin <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:52 PM Guillaume Rischard <[hidden email]> wrote:
The on-the-ground rule has served us well on disputed borders: there is no other reasonable and possible alternative. Creating an exception in Crimea, without any justification, opens Pandora’s box. 

All of these statements are misleading. If Crimea is an exception, how is the ground-truth rule applied in South Osetia and Abkhazia, both of which are included in the Georgia boundary which has absolutely no control over those territories (de-facto controlled by Russia)? Why is Transnistria included in the boundaries of Moldova? Why does the Cyprus boundary include a large area fully controlled by Turkey? What police and tax authority is there in large areas of Iran and Iraq controlled by ISIS, and why are these areas still included in the respective countries?

The only major difference in those cases compared to Crimea is that applying the ground-truth rule there would require mapping respective areas as independent countries. But — big surprise! — OSM community by convention limits the list of countries to those recognized by the UN, because, as it turns out, a country is a political entity after all. How ironic is that? 

In practice, OSM never fully adhered to the ground truth rule when it comes to country boundaries, but at least the policy was vague enough to make arbitrary decisions, with either "ground truth" or "widely internationally recognized" bit taking precedence depending on how the DWG members feel about the world on a particular day. Pretending OSM is out of politics when solving an inherently political issue does not help, because then you take a political side implicitly (becoming a welcome tool of Russian regime propaganda in this case).

There are reasonable and possible alternatives, such as this in-progress disputed boundaries proposal, but due to the complexity and emotional charge of the issue, fleshing them out to a practical consensus will take a considerable time. Until such a common ground is found, the most practical thing you can do is to revert to a balance point that prevents never-ending edit wars and worked well in practice for the last 5 years. It's unfortunate that this issue wasn't taken seriously in that period, but hopefully this crisis, however damaging, will facilitate coming to a universal solution soon.

--
Vladimir Agafonkin
https://agafonkin.com
+380 (93) 745 44 61


--
Vladimir Agafonkin
https://agafonkin.com
+380 (93) 745 44 61

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

Re: Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

Oleksiy Muzalyev
In reply to this post by Tom Hughes-3
On 12/11/2018 2:39 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:

> On 11/12/2018 13:22, Oleksiy Muzalyev wrote:
>
>> I would like to point out that in Ukraine displaying a map without
>> Crimea is illegal, article 110, part 1, of the Penal code. It
>> involves from 3 to 5 years of imprisonment [1]. So the OSM map
>> without Crimea is becoming potentially unusable for the community in
>> Ukraine.
>
> The same is true in India for the various borders, including
> that with China.
>
> It's also true in China for the border with India.
>
> Unsurprisingly there is no one rendering that is legal on both
> sides of the border.
>
> None of which has stopped us using our current rule for that
> border.
>
> Tom
>
I see your point. However, there is a difference. This is an issue in
Europe, which potentially could trigger a new Cold War, which already
brings a lot of losses and suffering all over the continent via
sanctions, lost opportunities, etc.

Tremendous forces are involved in this conflict, powerful armies are in
poise. In my opinion, an elegant technical solution, which satisfies
both sides, is to be found, what could set an example for political elites.

As for transparency for the board and candidates in this particular
issue, I would not recommend it. They are civilians and volunteers. In
my opinion, the board and DWG should listen to the opinions and develop
a compromise collective solution.

Best regards,

Oleksiy


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

Re: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

Daniel Koć
In reply to this post by Imre Samu
W dniu 11.12.2018 o 14:59, Imre Samu pisze:
> Imho:  there are other core values
 
> So we need to find a global optimum - and it is not easy.


I agree. Thanks for checking our foundations. In day to day operations
it's not possible to know every rule in OSM and it's not even needed,
since some common rules of thumb are enough, but it's important to
really check it when discussing rules.


> TLDR:  We need focusing for the customizable vector tiles for the next
> year!    (  Less community fighting - more working on the real
> problems!  )


I hope there will be something for a start in the coming weeks:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/214#issuecomment-432002876


--
"Excuse me, I have some growing up to do" [P. Gabriel]



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

Re: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

Eugene Alvin Villar
In reply to this post by Imre Samu
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:02 PM Imre Samu <[hidden email]> wrote:
TLDR:  We need focusing for the customizable vector tiles for the next year!    (  Less community fighting - more working on the real problems!  )

Vector tiles and customizable styling is not enough. AFAIK, we never use 3rd-party data (except for the public domain Natural Earth data for the lower zoom levels, IIRC) when rendering the default tile layer on the OSM. So we still need to represent the various viewpoints on disputed borders and territories within the OSM database itself if you want that level of flexibility on the default tile layer(s). There are already a couple or so threads on the Tagging mailing list discussing various tagging solutions for representing these viewpoints and disputes.

~Eugene

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

Re: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

jaakl
Hi,

There are map services (TomTom I believe) which have a parameter, something like "politics" with possible values China, India and Pakistan, and of course google does same for end-users. As far as I can think of more or less every single country has some details what they feel to be mapped differently from some others, probably all the neighbours of the same country connected with Crimea have this challenge. Nothing new here, that's reality and implementing "international map politics" that would be an obvious minimal feature of any international map app. So far only the biggest ones do it, but none of OSM-based AFAIK. OSM itself is a database, not app, so we can only enable it with tagging, and maybe in the 'preview' web tiles. 

Jaak

On 11 Dec 2018, at 17:39, Eugene Alvin Villar <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:02 PM Imre Samu <[hidden email]> wrote:
TLDR:  We need focusing for the customizable vector tiles for the next year!    (  Less community fighting - more working on the real problems!  )

Vector tiles and customizable styling is not enough. AFAIK, we never use 3rd-party data (except for the public domain Natural Earth data for the lower zoom levels, IIRC) when rendering the default tile layer on the OSM. So we still need to represent the various viewpoints on disputed borders and territories within the OSM database itself if you want that level of flexibility on the default tile layer(s). There are already a couple or so threads on the Tagging mailing list discussing various tagging solutions for representing these viewpoints and disputes.

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


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

Re: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

Imre Samu
In reply to this post by Eugene Alvin Villar
> Vector tiles and customizable styling is not enough. 
> So we still need to represent the various viewpoints on disputed borders and territories within the OSM database itself 

agree,   (  sorry,  I am not good at communication. :)    )

as I wrote:

Imho: an important part of the solution:
openstreetmap.org vector maps.  ( so we can customize the borders, languages for  the end users, communities )
-  improved admin border tagging 
-  more communication,  adapting the rules for the current political situations.

And I trust in DWG.  





Eugene Alvin Villar <[hidden email]> ezt írta (időpont: 2018. dec. 11., K, 16:41):
On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:02 PM Imre Samu <[hidden email]> wrote:
TLDR:  We need focusing for the customizable vector tiles for the next year!    (  Less community fighting - more working on the real problems!  )

Vector tiles and customizable styling is not enough. AFAIK, we never use 3rd-party data (except for the public domain Natural Earth data for the lower zoom levels, IIRC) when rendering the default tile layer on the OSM. So we still need to represent the various viewpoints on disputed borders and territories within the OSM database itself if you want that level of flexibility on the default tile layer(s). There are already a couple or so threads on the Tagging mailing list discussing various tagging solutions for representing these viewpoints and disputes.

~Eugene
_______________________________________________
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: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Manfred A. Reiter
On 11/12/2018 13:45, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:

[...]

The decision of the DWG was absolutely correct according to the rules that OSM imposed on itself.

I think the board here is opening Pandora's box. It will certainly be interesting to see how all the controversial areas will be judged from now on.


Given that there will be effectively a "new board" after Saturday I think that it's only fair to let them get their feet under the table first, but there clearly will be pressure from the community once they have done that to release the more comprehensive statement that was promised in https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-December/081781.html .

Without knowing on what basis this board decision to create an exception to the OSM norm was reached it's difficult to generalise from it and understand how it might apply in other edge cases.

Best Regards,

Andy (a member of the DWG, but sending this in a personal capacity)



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

Re: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

On 13. Dec 2018, at 13:53, Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:

Given that there will be effectively a "new board" after Saturday I think that it's only fair to let them get their feet under the table first, but there clearly will be pressure from the community once they have done that to release the more comprehensive statement that was promised in https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2018-December/081781.html .


given that the decision was taken by the current board it seems logical that the current board explains the reasoning behind it. What would the „new“ board know about it (ok, most of the new board will be the old board anyway).


Cheers, Martin 






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

Re: [Osmf-talk] Candidate's views? Re: Board decision on Crimea complaint

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend



Dec 13, 2018, 1:53 PM by [hidden email]:
On 11/12/2018 13:45, Manfred A. Reiter wrote:

[...]

The decision of the DWG was absolutely correct according to the rules that OSM imposed on itself.

I think the board here is opening Pandora's box. It will certainly be interesting to see how all the controversial areas will be judged from now on.


Given that there will be effectively a "new board" after Saturday
So not only they bizarrely refused to provide any reasoning at all but also promised that
a new board will find justification for their actions?


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