In humanitarian Map, Jammu and Kashmir you are making as part of INDIA. According to UNO, It is part of Pakistan. Such propaganda is against Pakistan.
Please correct the map according to UN.
OpenStreetMap
In humanitarian Map, Jammu and Kashmir you are making as part of INDIA. According to UNO, It is part of Pakistan. Such propaganda is against Pakistan.
Please correct the map according to UN.
Discussion
Comment from joost schouppe on 25 May 2015 at 09:07
There is no way to make a map that pleases all countries in the world. Because Openstreetmap wants to make the most practically usefull map as possible, the consensus is to map according to control on the ground. For example, the Krim is shown as part of Russia, because for all practical purposes, it is. Even if this is not recognized by the UN or other countries.
Or is the mapped border not the de facto line of control?
Comment from imagico on 25 May 2015 at 10:32
The whole situation including the different claims is fairly well mapped in that area, see:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4609727
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4609726
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4611980
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4610574
http://www.openstreetmap.org/relation/4611981
Comment from Vincent de Phily on 25 May 2015 at 11:05
See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Disputes and http://wiki.osmfoundation.org/w/images/d/d8/DisputedTerritoriesInformation.pdf
Comment from redsteakraw on 26 May 2015 at 02:55
When boarders are concerned and there are disputes OSM has a neutral principle that seeks to solve disputes. that principle is ground truth. If I were to go to any of those places who would be in control, which military, government offices and other administrative systems have a on the ground control there. I don’t know about the specifics in your cases but you would only have a case with OSM on the grounds of ground truth and not an organization that just proclaims whoes land it is irrespective of ground truth. Now the only exception to ground truth would be in areas where it is constantly changing from day to day. So don’t look at these borders like OpenStreetMap is taking a side it isn’t it just seeks to describe what is.
Comment from zmmalik on 26 May 2015 at 06:37
Kashmir at the United Nations
On 1 January 1948, India formally referred the case of Pakistani aggression in Kashmir to the United Nations Security Council under Article 35 of the UN Charter. Kashmir at U.N.This move was directed towards protecting India’s territorial integrity. Initially, Pakistan denied that its troops were present on the soil of Kashmir but when a 3-member UN delegation (subsequent to the UN Security Council resolution dated 20 January 1948) visited the actual scene of fighting, the Pakistan government admitted the presence of its troops. Consequently, the UN included the Kashmir issue on its agenda. On 5 February 1948, the UN resolution interalia called for an immediate ceasefire and a plebiscite to decide the future of the state. By 21 April 1948, the UN among other issues, increased the number of members of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) from 3 to 5 and recommended to the governments of India and Pakistan interalia for (1) the withdrawal of all tribesmen and Pakistanis, (2) the reduction of force levels by India on restoration of normalcy, (3) the appointment of a plebiscite administration by India and (4) the appointment of a plebiscite administrator by the UN Secretary General. On 13 August 1948, the UN adopted another resolution interalia calling for (1) a ceasefire, (2) Pakistan to withdraw the tribals and to put its troops under the command of local civilian authorities, (3) India to withdraw bulk of its troops, (4) the UN observers to supervise the ceasefire and (5) the holding of the plebiscite. The resolution was followed up on 11 December 1948 with the appointment of a plebiscite administrator. On 5 January 1949, the two earlier resolutions were amalgamated into a single resolution that reiterated the earlier proposals.
(a) On 22 March 1949, Admiral Chester Nimitz of the US Navy was appointed by the UN to ensure the implementation of the 13 August 1948 resolution through arbitration. The mission failed.
(b) Following this, General Macnanghton of Canada, the then UN President, was authorised by the Security Council to informally seek a mutually satisfactory solution. His proposals for the demilitarisation were unacceptable to India and Pakistan. Hence, on 14 March 1950, the UNCIP was dissolved and Sir Owen, a judge from Australia was appointed as the UN representative to seek the UN objective of demilitarisation. He suggested two plans including the division of the state. The government of India rejected both the proposals as these provided for the establishment of an UN authority in the state.
(c) Thereafter, Dr. Frank Graham was appointed as the UN representative by a UN resolution (30 March 1951) to bring about demilitarisation. Five rounds of discussions followed (Sept. 1951 - Feb. 1953). Dr. Graham had suggested the reduction of Pakistani troops in Pakistan Occupied Kashimr (PoK) to 6000 and that of the Indian troops to 21000 in J&K. The proposal fell through because of opposition from Pakistan.
(d) The UN later authorised Gunnar Jarring, the then UN President, to visit India and Pakistan to seek demilitarisation. He visited India and Pakistan (14 March - 11 April 1957). He later reported the failure of the visit to the UN, appreciating that Pakistan’s joining SEATO and the Bagdad Pact had compelled India to shift her stand on Kashmir.
Comment from Vincent de Phily on 26 May 2015 at 09:23
Sorry zmmalik, but there’s no point in copy-pasting that kind of text in a diary comment.
Please read through both links I provided, and look at the various OSM boundaries that strive to show the current situation with all its complications.
If after that you still think that the current set of borders in OSM are not accurate and neutral, you can contact the DWG to examine the situation. You’ll need to provide links to recent documents (not something from 1957…) that show, from various angles (at least Indian and Pakistanese) that the current on-the-ground and/or official status is different from what OSM conveys.
Comment from redsteakraw on 26 May 2015 at 19:35
zmmalik The only thing that really matters is which government actually controls the territory in question not on paper. Which government has military bases, offices and collects taxes in the region.? If the answers to that are Pakistan then there is a mistake if the answer is India then there is no mistake. OSM can’t go into this country claims this on paper or that on paper this only leads to endless disputes because by the very nature the other side would dispute any claim just as strongly and it will go no where. By deciding based on ground truth it sidesteps the dispute and distills the answer to objective verifiable facts not opinions and claims. I hope you can see why such a position is needed and useful and how it isn’t a political decision.