#CrimeaІsUkraine #DWG #CrimeaMap #КримЦеУкраїна #ИхТамНет

Posted by z-yurets on 5 December 2018 in English (English)

The Ukrainian community is concerned about the possible negative impact on the project as a whole, the emergence of lawsuits from users of data and the subsequent decline of the project, and therefore restores the borders of Ukraine to the internationally recognized status. The recent decision of DWG ( ) neglects the wide recognition of Crimea as an integral part of Ukraine expressed by numerous governments and international organizations (in particular, UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 / ). DWG actions directed to cut off Crimea from the borders of Ukraine are considered to be inadequate to the interests of the project and are not recognized by law. Any blockages (bans) aimed against members who restored the border of Ukraine to the widely internationally recognized status will be seen as unjustified pressure on the entire community and usurpation of power in the OSM.


“changing names or country information would require consensus from both the Ukrainian and Russian communities. It is unlikely that any such edit proposals will be able to achieve this.” (с) DWG //

Moreover, according to clause 4, a consensus should be reached between the Ukrainian and Russian communities on changing information about countries. There is no consensus - there is no reason to separate the Crimea from Ukraine.

#CrimeaІsUkraine #DWG #CrimeaMap #КримЦеУкраїна #ИхТамНет - ; - ; - ;Дівчина_з_Коломиї - ;паляниця - ; - ; - ;Хтосьіншийдятел - ; - ; - ; - ;

...and other // // //

Comment from rorym 🏳️‍🌈 on 5 December 2018 at 08:59

OSM has a long standing rule of drawing borders where "de facto physical control" is. By this rule, Crimea should be marked as being in Russia. I'm not sure what your suggesting replacing that rule with. "UN resolution" might sound nice but (i) it's heavily biased to a few former countries, (ii) please tell me where the borders of Isreal is according to this criteria (should we use UN Resolution 181? Why not?)

There are some proposals to allow the mapping of "the border of country A according to country B" (#1, #2). Assisting in this process, with mapping, with software support, can be very useful toward solving this issue. I think we all sympathize with the people of Ukraine.

Comment from Adamant1 on 5 December 2018 at 13:41

Take it how you will, but know matter who is right here, threats, petty infighting and reversion wars from either side does more to damage the reputation of OSM then a temporary remapping of a border.

While its idealistic to say that OSM is about the community, its just not realistic. The people in charge could as easily implement measures to cripple edits by its users without a hard to get over review process. Then enthusiast mappers would essentially get pushed in preference for less aggressive, more rule following, things like AI and imports. There's already been serious talk about it in relation to the Pokemon Go mappers and how much vandalism they have caused. So don't think it wouldn't happen. Look at how Wikipedia is run now where its almost impossible for normal editors to make edits anymore due to the same type of actions and attitude by the community.

Ultimately, I could care less about who is right or wrong here, but I do think threatening edit wars or going off about UN charters is not helpful and there are more appropriate ways to deal with it. As you say, there's no consensus on either the side by your side or the Russians to come to an agreement as to how the border should be. No consensus doesn't mean it defaults to you getting your way. A big part of the reason the DWG ruled the way they did was because of your inability to work things out with the Russian mappers. So it defaulted to established mapping rules. That's how it should go. If you want it done differently, put in the work to figure it out with the Russians instead of being petty and dragging the DWG through the mud. Also, realistically they have interests in Russia like Maps.Me and OSMand that means they wouldn't be served well to stomp all over the Russian community by automatically siding with you. You also don't what kind of talks they had behind the scenes before they made their decision. Those are both things to seriously consider. Especially if you care about the community thriving as you claim. I'm pretty sure the community would way smaller without the people from Russia. Maybe more so them company like Microsoft that your so worried about them pushing away by doing this. It doesn't justify anything, but it does matter.

Otherwise, the rest of the community will just side with the DWG and the border will never get changed back to how you want it. I don't remember the Russians ever throwing fits in diary entries or anywhere else about how the border was on your side when it was. All the pettyness and attitude does is turn people off of caring about it. Which will guarantee it will never change.

I know I'm sick of seeing yet another angry Ukraine rant every time I read through the diary entries. And I'm on your side in this. That said, the whole thing reeks to me of entitlement. We might edit the map, but it give us the right to stomp all over precedence and established rules, or to slander the people in charge just because they make a bad call. Otherwise if its not entitlement and tantrum throwing, take it up in the proper channels and air your grievances the right way, with poise and restraint. You'll have a much better chance of things changing that way and you'll do it with the rest of the community on your side. This current way isn't the answer though.

Comment from Adamant1 on 5 December 2018 at 14:01

I'd also mention that the UN resolution are not legally binding and are only recommendations. Further, even if they were legally binding, it would only apply to the actions of states against each other. Not private entities. Therefore, in know way does a UN resolution have any bearing how private organizations do their business. Let alone would a legally binding contract by UN member states to recognize the borders of Ukraine force any map company to draw their borders a certain way.

Ultimately, any map company can draw their maps however they want. Its not on the UN or even the member states where the map company resides to dictate those things. Here in America it would be illegal if the United States did because its considered artistic license under the constitution. So, the whole UN charter thing is essentially a none argument. Even the UN member states don't really care about it or else they would have made it international law. Which they didn't. If it was, it would be impossible to legally enforce anyway. Citing it in changeset comments to justify what is essentially vandalism is definitely pointless.

Comment from rorym 🏳️‍🌈 on 5 December 2018 at 14:19

"legally binding" isn't very useful here. The OSM project is free to use any criteria for country borders, and is entirely free to outsource that decision making to the UN and use "UN resolution".

But that's not how things have worked in OSM for 10+ years, and there are problems with using "UN resolution" as a criteria, and people advocating for it need to address the issues with it. But I haven't seen anyone willing to engage in that.

Comment from Adamant1 on 5 December 2018 at 14:31

I agree. I mentioned the legality aspect because legal action is the only thing in my opinion that would force the DWGs hand. Although there is clearly no legal recourse that can be taken here. Its completely ineffective otherwise to just say "Hey, the UN says this so you should follow it just because." As you say, there's clear issues with it that they aren't willing to address and its not going to be adopted as a standard just because they say it should.

As it stands I think the route the DWG took seems to be best and only one. There hasn't been a good (or any) alternative posed and its mostly been a bunch of complaining in the absence of having a good proposition. I'm the DWG would be fine with considering one if it were to come along or to accept the "will of the people" if the people were to agree to how the border should be. I don't blame the DWG for not revering course at this point though. Especially considering the attitude of the other side.

Comment from Richard on 5 December 2018 at 15:00

Please stop posting the same thing repeatedly.

Login to leave a comment