3 ms·
IIRC OSM's attitude is "map what's on the ground", so if people in Crimea believe they are in Russia that's what OSM should show.
by thepete2 7y ago
IIRC OSM's attitude is "map what's on the ground", so if people in Crimea believe they are in Russia that's what OSM should show.
- femto 7y agoTo that end, there are proposals for OSM to handle disputed boundaries. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Mapping_disputed_boundaries https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/M... The idea is that OSM captures the multiple views of the boundary in dispute, allowing the user to choose their rendering. Whilst good in theory, it's probably not different to other's approach in practise. Thinking people can choose to see a boundary as disputed, whilst nationalists on either side can choose to see it as soley theirs, thus amplifying their own echo chamber. The main difference from others is that the choice of rendering is potentially up to the individual, due to the availability of all the data, but in practise most people will be using a provider who has already made the choice for them.
- aspaceman 7y agoThose "disputed" territories are still information though. In OSM's case, I might want to know which territories are disputed, and in what ways they are. You could give out that info.
- rmc 7y agoYes, that's OSM's usual rule, but an exception was made for Crimea, and it is mapped as part of Ukraine & Russia (overlapping borders)