[OSM-talk] Fwd: DWG policy on Crimea

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

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.”

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

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 <***@gmail.com>
> Date: 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST
> To: ***@osmfoundation.org
> 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

[_ 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 <***@gmail.com>
Verzonden: Sunday, October 21, 2018 3:12:03 PM
Aan: ***@openstreetmap.org
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.”

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

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 <***@gmail.com<mailto:***@gmail.com>>
Date: 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST
To: ***@osmfoundation.org<mailto:***@osmfoundation.org>
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

[Imre Samu]

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

And part of Russia:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60189#map=6/45.014/33.873&layers=C

Imre

Martin Koppenhoefer <***@gmail.com> 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.”
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.
> <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf>
> pdf
>
> 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 <***@gmail.com>
> *Date:* 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST
> *To:* ***@osmfoundation.org
> *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
> ***@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

[Mateusz Konieczny]

21. Oct 2018 15:12 by ***@gmail.com <mailto:***@gmail.com>:


> 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.”
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation. <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf>> pdf 
> When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine in OSM: > https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199 <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 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#On_the_Ground_Rule>. Boundaries recorded inOpenStreetMap are ones that are the most widely internationally recognised and best meets realitieson the ground, generally meaning physical control."

[Yuri Astrakhan]

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 <***@tutanota.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> 21. Oct 2018 15:12 by ***@gmail.com:
>
> 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.”
>
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.
> <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf>
> pdf
>
> 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
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes#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
> ***@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

[Mateusz Konieczny]

21. Oct 2018 23:19 by ***@gmail.com <mailto:***@gmail.com>:


> 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 <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.

[Yuri Astrakhan]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <***@tutanota.com>
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).

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 22. Okt. 2018 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Yuri Astrakhan <
***@gmail.com>:

> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <***@tutanota.com>
> 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).

[Mateusz Konieczny]

22. Oct 2018 16:17 by ***@gmail.com <mailto:***@gmail.com>:


> Am Mo., 22. Okt. 2018 um 15:54 Uhr schrieb Yuri Astrakhan <> ***@gmail.com <mailto:***@gmail.com>> >:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <>> ***@tutanota.com <mailto:***@tutanota.com>>> > 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.

[Mateusz Konieczny]

22. Oct 2018 15:51 by ***@gmail.com <mailto:***@gmail.com>:


> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <> ***@tutanota.com <mailto:***@tutanota.com>> > 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.

[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.

[Mateusz Konieczny]

22. Oct 2018 16:59 by ***@xs4all.nl <mailto:***@xs4all.nl>:


>
> 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.

[Warin]

On 23/10/18 03:24, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 22. Oct 2018 16:59 by ***@xs4all.nl
> <mailto:***@xs4all.nl>:
>
> 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.
>


Some interesting reading here on the 'reality' of a 'country'..
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-03/countries-changing-what-it-means-to-be-a-nation-state/10435028

In particular the Mohawk Nation at Akwesasne is of interest - spans 2
'countries' ... I think it is like the reindeer headers of Finland/Russia.
Think you'll find the perceptions change depending on the experience of
the individual and possibly their cultural links.

[Greg Troxel]

Yuri Astrakhan <***@gmail.com> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <***@tutanota.com>
> 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.

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 7:29 PM Greg Troxel <***@lexort.com> wrote:

> Yuri Astrakhan <***@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 8:22 AM Mateusz Konieczny <
> ***@tutanota.com>
> > 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.

[Greg Troxel]

Paul Johnson <***@ursamundi.org> writes:

> 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.

You make very good points and I don't disagree with them.

I was trying to avoid getting into the details, and only trying to rebut
the notion that "we accept government data abouto boundaries, so we
should accept it here too". This is actually consistent with what you
said, that if multiple adjoining governments have the same idea of the
boundary, that's a clue that it's uncontested and probably good data.

[Frederik Ramm]

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 ***@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

[Christoph Hormann]

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/

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 23.10.2018 11:06, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> 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

Agreed. I would be tempted to say, however, that if a country requires a
certain boundary depiction by law, like e.g. India and China do, then
that's the same level of verifiability like that country's internal
boundaries for which we also rely on what the "official" take is. At
least the current laws regarding the Indian border are much more than
"an opinion of a political faction".

Having said that - Portugal still officially claims Olivença but it
seems to be more a folkloristic thing than an actual dispute, and the
average Portuguese would probably be astonished if a map were to
actually depict Olivença as part of Portgual. This means we'd have to
start which claims are serious and which are just for old times' sake ;)

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail ***@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

[Christoph Hormann]

On Tuesday 23 October 2018, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
> Agreed. I would be tempted to say, however, that if a country
> requires a certain boundary depiction by law, like e.g. India and
> China do, then that's the same level of verifiability like that
> country's internal boundaries for which we also rely on what the
> "official" take is. At least the current laws regarding the Indian
> border are much more than "an opinion of a political faction".

A territorial claim that does not represent de facto administration is
usually inherently non-verifiable because the claiming authority is by
definition the only source of the information (this is why it is called
a claim).

Unless a territorial claim coicides with a de facto administrative
division its geometry is usually not independently verifiable. India
would certainly remove any boundary markers indicating the limits of a
Chinese claim on territory they control.

Boundaries of de facto administration OTOH can normally be independently
verified even at the higher admin levels if they are demarcated or if
they coicide with physically observable features. The fact that much
of the administrative boundary data in OSM is imported and never has
actually been verified on the ground is a different matter.

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

[Johnparis]

This thread has strayed rather far afield from the original question, which
was whether the OSM depiction of Crimea corresponds to the OSMF policy. It
seems clear to me that it does not.

I would suggest that the depiction of Northern Cyprus does not correspond
to the policy either. The actual physical control boundary is depicted at
admin_level 3 or 4 rather than 2.

Cheers,

John

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 1:05 PM Frederik Ramm <***@remote.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 23.10.2018 11:06, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> > 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
>
> Agreed. I would be tempted to say, however, that if a country requires a
> certain boundary depiction by law, like e.g. India and China do, then
> that's the same level of verifiability like that country's internal
> boundaries for which we also rely on what the "official" take is. At
> least the current laws regarding the Indian border are much more than
> "an opinion of a political faction".
>
> Having said that - Portugal still officially claims Olivença but it
> seems to be more a folkloristic thing than an actual dispute, and the
> average Portuguese would probably be astonished if a map were to
> actually depict Olivença as part of Portgual. This means we'd have to
> start which claims are serious and which are just for old times' sake ;)
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm ## eMail ***@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> ***@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 23. Oct 2018, at 11:06, Christoph Hormann <***@imagico.de> wrote:
>
> 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.


just because not all alternative borders are verifiable does not mean none of them is. When someone claims former borders we can rely on the osm versions of them. There will be rules, you could not claim any border, but if there are significant, alternative, documented views (according to criteria which will have to be established), you could add them.

A single consistent model of reality does not exclude the mapping of different claims for the same territory, rather the opposite it can be seen as a requirement for the faithful representation of the reality in certain areas to be able to map these claims.

Cheers, Martin

[Mateusz Konieczny]

23. Oct 2018 08:57 by ***@remote.org <mailto:***@remote.org>:


> 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.

[Oleksiy Muzalyev]

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.”
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.
> <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf>pdf
>
>
> 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 <***@gmail.com
>> <mailto:***@gmail.com>>
>> *Date:* 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST
>> *To:* ***@osmfoundation.org <mailto:***@osmfoundation.org>
>> *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
> ***@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Can you summarize parts of this article (5k+ words, in "long read" section) that are relevant totagging of Russian and Ukrainian border in the Crimea?

22. Oct 2018 00:44 by ***@bluewin.ch <mailto:***@bluewin.ch>:


> > 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 <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.”>>
>> >> >> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation. <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf>>> pdf >>
>> >> >> When I recently looked at Crimea I noticed it is still part of the Ucraine in OSM: >> https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/60199 <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 <>>> ***@gmail.com <mailto:***@gmail.com>>>> >
>>> >>> Date:>>> 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST
>>> >>> To:>>> >>> ***@osmfoundation.org <mailto:***@osmfoundation.org>
>>> >>> 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 <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>> ***@openstreetmap.org <mailto:***@openstreetmap.org>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk>>>
>
>
>
>

[Oleksiy Muzalyev]

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 ***@bluewin.ch
> <mailto:***@bluewin.ch>:
>
> 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.”
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.
> <https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf>pdf
>
>
> 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 <***@gmail.com
> <mailto:***@gmail.com>>
> *Date:* 20. August 2018 at 10:42:33 CEST
> *To:* ***@osmfoundation.org <mailto:***@osmfoundation.org>
> *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
> ***@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> ***@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk