https://weibo.com/2803301701/Ll2Vhgzgu?refer_flag=1001030103_

https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV12R4y1F7FC 这个应该是准确位置

按照公务，可以不添加wikipedia 添加wikidate，毕竟那是他们的命名习惯

@Adamant1 Thank you for the double standard phenomenon; it is obvious that these problems are only for China, just because it is China. This is where the Western values are terrifying.

Regarding these values, I just want to say: shut up and maping, do you really want to win by suppressing Chinese editors by OSM? This will not change the people who die every day in the lighthouse country (the United States) due to the epidemic (I feel sorry for the passing of these lives).

Do you feel that there is no point in continuing the discussion? OSM is only a small part of this society. OPEN is its characteristic, and OPEN must be neutral. The best way for the community to avoid meaningless political disputes is on ground. This is also my criticism of the previous article. Woodpeck’s response in the article discrediting China’s OSMmaper was surprised. Although Woodpeck had no problem with my previous ban, when a DWG manager took the initiative to make such remarks, it would undoubtedly undermine the neutrality of OSM. And on ground principle, this is why so many Chinese OSMmapers feel uncomfortable this time.

感谢你提出的双标现象；很显然这些问题只针对中国，只因为是中国。这就是西方价值观恐怖的地方。

对于这些价值观我只想说：闭上嘴好好画图，难道真想通过是OSM压制中国编者来获得胜利吗？这也无法改变 灯塔国家（美国）每天因为疫情死去的人们（对于这些生命的逝去我感到惋惜）。

是不是感觉继续讨论下去已经没有意义了？OSM只是这个社会的小一部分，OPEN是他的特点，而OPEN就要做到中立，而让社群避免无意义的政治纠纷最好的方法就是on ground，这也是我对之前那篇带有抨击抹黑中国OSMmaper的文章中Woodpeck的回复感到惊讶，虽然Woodpeck对我的有过的禁封并没有什么问题，但是当一位DWG管理者主动发表这样的言论，毫无疑问是会破坏OSM的中立性和on ground原则，这也是这次为什么这么多中国OSMmaper感到不舒适。

@Hike&Map

I feel the real problem is - that OSMF continues to reject any proposal for a proper tagging scheme for disputed areas.

然我修改下

台湾 和 中国大陆 还有蒙古国已经俄罗斯某块争议地区岂不是不要画了？ 您可以搜一下台湾当局的声称区域是啥样的。

I am going to modify it

Taiwan, China, and Mongolia, and a certain disputed area in Russia, shouldn’t it be left unpainted? You can search for what the Taiwan authorities’ claimed area is like.

争议地区无处不在，OSM对于稳定由一方控制的区域应该体现出来。而我认为这个时间有半年以上就可以了，而有建设房子等比较永久性的建筑特别是建立了一个村落有普通民众居住的区域更可以直接修改归属。

Disputed areas are everywhere, and OSM should reflect the stability of areas controlled by one party. And I think this time is more than half a year, and if there are more permanent buildings such as houses, especially the establishment of a village where ordinary people live, you can directly modify the ownership.

@Hike&Map

I feel the real problem is - that OSMF continues to reject any proposal for a proper tagging scheme for disputed areas.

台湾怎么办？

韩国朝鲜怎么办？

互联网如此发达的年代，特别是senitel卫星能维持几乎每周都更新的情况下，很多地区的近一年变化很好确认。

OSM要做的就是在WIKI上建立很多争议地区的专题页面，记录维护这些地区实际控制情况，当变化趋向于稳定后就应该按照实际情况渲染。上述中国两个村庄建立好几年了就非常符合这个点。

比如中国南海日常被破坏，DWG经常要维护，奈何不同语言的维基百科存在一定程度的偏向性，很多文献虽然可以被搜索到但是没有统一的页面记录，如果有就能对每个岛屿的实际情况关注，是否还是岛礁还是已经填土建设了。

What about Taiwan?

What about South Korea and North Korea?

In the era when the Internet is so developed, especially when the Senitel satellite can be updated almost every week, the changes in many areas in the past year are well confirmed.

What OSM needs to do is to establish a lot of thematic pages of disputed areas on the WIKI, record and maintain the actual control situation in these areas, and when the changes tend to stabilize, they should be rendered according to the actual situation. The above two Chinese villages have been established for several years, which fits this point very well.

For example, the South China Sea is destroyed daily, and DWG is often maintained. However, Wikipedia in different languages has a certain degree of bias. Although many documents can be searched, there is no unified page record. If there is one, you can check the actual situation of each island. Pay attention to whether it is still an island or reef has been filled with soil for construction.

@redstrakraw

*I don’t care about all these political BS just ground truth.

我非常同意你的第一句话，所以无论现实多么让所谓的“西方价值观”难以接受，也应该中立体现。 OSM应该如此，这才是OPEN的，而对于中国这些“西方价值观”难以接受的控制区域，解决的方法只有一种，让关注这些小国的OSM编者前往现场驱赶中国的居民，政府，军队。 是不是觉得很可笑？对的OSM应该是体现现实，而不是成为“西方价值观”嘴上帮助小国的政治工具。 OSM的DWG强调on ground原则也是为了避免无意义的政治，OSM应该是更多热爱地图、地理、公路、铁路、交通和城市发展等用户的聚集地，用on ground能最好的避免无意义的争论，很简单不管你在OSM上将南海争取给越南或者菲律宾等国也改变不了现实。

I very much agree with your first sentence, so no matter how difficult the reality is to accept the so-called “Western values”, it should be reflected in a neutral manner. OSM should be like this. This is OPEN, and there is only one way to solve the control areas of China that are difficult to accept by “Western values”. Let OSM editors who pay attention to these small countries go to the scene to drive Chinese residents, government, and military. Is it ridiculous? The right OSM should reflect reality, rather than become a political tool for helping small countries on the lips of “Western values.” OSM’s DWG emphasizes the on ground principle to avoid meaningless politics. OSM should be a gathering place for users who love maps, geography, roads, railways, transportation and urban development. Using on ground can best avoid meaningless politics. The argument is simple, whether you win the South China Sea to Vietnam or the Philippines on OSM will not change the reality.

@ndrw6

These villages have the same status as artificial islands in South China Sea - no one outside China would call them a Chinese territory.

您搞错了一个基本逻辑，其它国家承认不承认不是关键，关键是谁控制。

就好比Siprus客观存在是两个国家，但是其中一方不承认。您这个言论就和前几年South China Sea Arbitration结束后很多人用这个事件来修改，一样不符合on the ground选择，你的这句话同样是破坏这个选择，那osm最后不再是open而且 show Western values map。😂

@ndrw6 您的评论再次验证了那个道理，我也无意和你讨论（因为不会有结果）；硬要讨论就是您和woodpeck已经先入为主，你们觉得我们这边用户都是“假定被控”。

其实我前面也说了通篇文章将很多常见的问题贴上了中国的标签试图黑化中国编者，给大家植入一个潜意识，让人们在碰到有中国相关的争议时候先入为主，实际上DWG这次处理不丹和中国的边界就有着这样的问题。

我觉得DWG最近在中国和不丹的问题处理就有很大的问题，首先大量的道路DWG工作人员可以通过 https://www.sentinel-hub.com/explore/sentinelplayground/ 查看到，而且两个村庄也能在sentinel看的很清楚，然而dwg的成员直接退回成对不丹有利的状态后开始了漫长的调查，这个时间越久越让我感觉到西方的双标。

实际上DWG在处理争议数据如果要调查，完全可以将争议地区先改成不属于任何国家，就好比钓鱼岛一样；然而你们没有这么做。

真不敢相信woodpeck会说出这样的言论，我感受到了OSM对中国编者的歧视。

另外说一下你关注的成都到高雄国道还有京台高速，不管叫法多有政治性他都是客观存在的，反倒是台湾这个地方渲染名字没有渲染法定名字roc，但是这是你们区域的事大部分我们这边osmmaper没有关注，就好比前几年美国将中国大使馆门口一条路改名，如果客观存在就应该如实显示，不管这条路让别的地方用户不接受。如果实际道路名称实际控制区域都要受到各种意识形态形象osm谈何人人可编辑？

另外我没空研究这些编辑集合挑出个别例子来说事，你的行为就像是bbc滤镜一样，我希望osm用户如果希望中国区或者各种区域发展的更好还是有空多去贡献编辑，而不是在这里分裂osm社群直接给一个地区的用户戴帽子。

我编辑osm这么久碰到了很多友好的外国人，他们不理解中国的情况我们很多编者会和他们解释，这些编者通常来自自己的确很完善的区域，很有意思的是我没碰到过台湾的用户。倒是你事情说的好像很严重都可以给bbc写一篇新闻了，希望osm不要变成下一个wikipedia，没事拉帮结派投票，罢免管理员。

这个文章通篇阅读下来，我感觉就鸡蛋里挑骨头。只因为编者来自这里就带有偏见，我想如果你经常玩osm那就应该知道很多问题都是客观存在的，比如京台高速和到高雄的道路，我见过一位是管理员的台湾用户跑过来really。都不会自己搜索一下维基百科，我觉得osm数据参考一定是当地用户最有发言权的，编辑你没有居住过的区域一定要秉着尊重当地，这也是为了osm能在更多地区发展。 osm对于争议地区采取的方法就是实际来，而osm本来就鼓励当地用户去提供很准确的数据，我见过一个学校在osm标注成监狱，就因为一些媒体的偏见，我打开天地图搜到了学校。 osm的破坏者很多，我见过中国用户编辑钓鱼岛归属导致中日两方一些新用户搞编辑战，我见过南海隔三差五有越南新用户做破坏三沙市的编辑。当然这些你看不到，因为你眼中只有中国。

BTW you left https://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/2713482

XD there so chaos

If it is implemented well, some local websites can choose specific data to render the boundaries of their own country’s claims. This is very good.

如果我玩OSM的目标不是影响到我国安全，我也不希望OSM因为这一点而不便在中国发展。

问一下我下了这个怎么使用啊 20N_110E_treecover2010_v3.tif.zip

加一个叫town的点 和county点独立开

这个功能好屌爆啊 不错

thanks you for jiangxi and nanchang administrative ～