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 <ok...@johnfreed.com> 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 <nvke...@gmail.com> > 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: >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/nvk/diary/47890 >> >> 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 >> t...@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
